Kinyanjui v ASA International (Kenya) Limited (Petition E073 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 359 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a clear, voluntary resignation letter with no complaints cannot later be reframed as constructive dismissal or pay discrimination.
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 petitioner was constructively dismissed by the respondent
- 2.Whether the petitioner's rights were violated
- 3.Whether the respondent's cross-petition is merited
- 4.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Constructive dismissal
The petitioner was not constructively dismissed; his resignation was voluntary and unambiguous
Applying the Coca Cola test, the court required a fundamental breach going to the root of the contract and a causal link between the employer's conduct and the resignation. The petitioner's resignation letter thanked the employer, offered transition assistance and assigned no negative reasons. He was released on 15/2/2024 and his dues were calculated and signed off, indicating an amicable departure.
Alleged racial discrimination in remuneration
The discrimination claim failed for want of proof of equal work in the same job group
Although the petitioner alleged a parallel expatriate payroll and produced salary records, the court found no documents proving he and Sankar Das were in the same job group or performed similar duties. The comparator had served for over 32 years in progressively senior roles, which objectively justified different remuneration. Under Section 5 of the Employment Act, equal remuneration applies to work of equal value.
Cross-petition for breach of privacy and data protection
The cross-petition failed for lack of proof of disclosure and injury
The cross-petitioners alleged that the petitioner breached confidentiality and the right to privacy by disclosing Sankar Das's salary and sharing data with bloggers. The court found no clear evidence of any sharing of information with third parties and no demonstrated injury, so the cross-petition could not succeed.
Legal principles established
#- Constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach by the employer and a causal link between the employer's conduct and the employee's resignation
- An employer may distinguish, exclude or prefer a person on the basis of an inherent requirement of a job or objective factors such as seniority without engaging in unlawful discrimination
Court orders
#- 1.The petition fails
- 2.The cross-petition fails
- 3.Each party shall bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Section 12; Constitution Articles 27, 28, 31, 41 and 43
Relief refused
#Declaration that resignation was constructive dismissal and unfair termination
The resignation letter was clear and unambiguous and showed voluntary departure with no negative reasons assigned
Declaration of constitutional rights violations and related damages
No evidence that petitioner and comparator were in the same job group performing similar duties; comparator had 32 years' service
Special damages of KShs. 14,511,823.92 for salary differential
Discrimination claim failed; pay difference attributable to different duties and longer service
Cross-petitioners' claims for damages of KShs. 5,000,000 each for breach of privacy
No evidence that the petitioner shared confidential information with bloggers or that injury was suffered
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs
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.
In the circumstances, I find no evidence of constructive dismissal by the respondent against the petitioner.
the submissions that the petitioner was discriminated against is found without merit and is therefore disregarded
There is no clear evidence that the petitioner shared any information with anybody and the cross petition therefore fails.
I find that the petition and cross petition fails and therefore each party shall bear its own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent dates of resignation and promotion within the judgment
Inconsistent description of the promotion (Job Grade V on 22nd February 2022 vs 1/1/2022 promotion to Assistant Director grade V)
Role labels of the parties in the cross-petition are inconsistently used (Petitioner in the Cross-Petition refers at times to the employer)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kinyanjui v ASA International (Kenya) Limited (Petition E073 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 359 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 30th April 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/359/eng@2025-02-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.