Mitheu v Board of Trustees, Starehe Girls Centre (Cause 1692 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 156 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a school unfairly fired its Sponsorship Officer and awarded her over Kshs. 811,000 because it skipped proper disciplinary steps.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Claimant's contract was terminated unfairly and unlawfully, or at all, by the Respondent
- 2.Whether the Respondent violated the Claimant's statutory and constitutional rights
- 3.Whether the Claimant merits the prayers pleaded
- 4.Whether the Respondent has established its Counterclaim
Key legal issues
#Whether the contract was terminated or merely expired
The contract was terminated effective 20th February 2015 when the letter dated 17th February 2015 was handed to the Claimant
Although the last fixed-term contract ended on 31st December 2014, the Respondent had renewed it for 9 years, creating a legitimate expectation of renewal. The Respondent did not advise non-renewal but instead granted 35 days' annual leave signed by the Director and Bursar. The letter of 17th February 2015 did not merely note expiry; it detailed gross misconduct and advised clearance for terminal dues. Communication reached the Claimant on 20th February 2015, which is the effective date.
Whether termination was procedurally fair
Procedural fairness failed under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
No show-cause letter was issued on three of the allegations, and the Claimant was never taken before a disciplinary forum. Two of the allegations had already been dealt with by a warning letter in 2013, and rehashing them amounted to double punishment. The termination letter was issued months after the alleged incidents, while the Claimant was still being treated as an employee on leave.
Whether there were valid reasons justifying termination
The Respondent failed to substantiate the reasons under Section 43
Use of the personal m-pesa line was authorized by the Director since 2012. No parents or donors provided statements supporting the threats allegation. Copies of the raffle tickets were not exhibited and the students who sold them were not called. The Bursar, who could have explained the alleged plucked cash register pages, was not called as a witness. The criminal court's acquittal, though not binding, was noted.
Whether the Respondent's Counterclaim was established
The Counterclaim for Kshs. 144,230 and Kshs. 13,300 was declined as unsubstantiated
The Counterclaim relied on the criminal charge of stealing by servant; the Claimant was acquitted. The m-pesa collections were authorized by the Director. The students who sold raffle tickets were not called and ticket copies were not exhibited, so the alleged retention of Kshs. 13,300 was not proved.
Legal principles established
#- The effective date of termination is the date the employee receives communication that the contract has been terminated
- Reliance on previous practice is relevant in assessing whether termination was just and equitable
- Punishing an employee in a later year for allegations already dealt with through a warning amounts to double punishment
- Where no show-cause letter or disciplinary hearing preceded termination, procedural fairness under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act fails
Court orders
#- 1.It is declared that termination of the Claimant's contract by the Respondent was unfair
- 2.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant equivalent of 9 months' gross salary in compensation for unfair termination at Kshs. 336,996; gratuity over a period of 9.9 years as computed by the Respondent, at Kshs. 370,696; notice at Kshs. 37,444; January 2015 salary at Kshs. 37,444; and 20 days' salary for the month of February 2015, at Kshs. 28,803 – total Kshs. 811,383
- 3.The Counterclaim is declined
- 4.No order on the costs and interest
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court, original jurisdiction over employment disputes under the Employment Act and Constitution Articles 28 and 29 (as pleaded)
Relief refused
#Leave allowance for years worked at Kshs. 197,580
No contractual or statutory basis was shown
General damages for violation of Articles 28 and 29 of the Constitution
Adequate statutory remedies exist; the violations did not warrant constitutional invocation
Costs and interest
The Respondent is a charitable institution
Costs
No order on the costs and interest.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Court agrees with her, that going by precedence, she reasonably and legitimately expected that her contract would be renewed, after 31st December 2014.
The effective date of termination is the date the Employee receives communication from the Employer, that the contract has been terminated.
To punish the Claimant in 2015, for allegations that were dealt with through a letter of warning in 2013, would amount to double punishment.
Termination was therefore unfair, both on procedure and justification, under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
The standard of proof in a criminal trial, is onerous, and not the same standard required in establishing valid termination reason, under Section 43 of the Employment Act.
In sum, it is ordered: a. It is declared that termination of the Claimant's contract by the Respondent was unfair. b. The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant equivalent of 9 months' gross salary in compensation for unfair termination at Kshs. 336,996
Issues in the judgment
#The case number and neutral citation are not stated anywhere in the judgment text provided
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mitheu v Board of Trustees, Starehe Girls Centre (Cause 1692 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 156 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/156/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.