Kirigo v Othaya Mukurwe-Ini Water Services Limited (Cause E016 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 451 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that an employee who misses a contractual deadline for requesting a contract renewal loses any right to challenge the non-renewal.
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 contract created a legitimate expectation for a renewal.
- 2.If so, whether the claimant fulfilled the conditions provided for the renewal.
- 3.If so, whether the failure to renew the contract amounted to unfair dismissal.
- 4.Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in his pleading.
Key legal issues
#Whether the fixed term contract created a legitimate expectation of renewal
The contract created a legitimate expectation of renewal conditional on the claimant meeting two conditions: satisfactory performance and timely application for renewal six months before expiry.
The court adopted the general rule that fixed term contracts do not create expectations of renewal, but accepted Rika J's exceptions: an express promise in the contract can induce a protected expectation. Clause 5 of the contract promised renewal based on performance and timely application, so a conditional legitimate expectation arose, though it did not confer an absolute right to renewal.
Whether the claimant fulfilled the conditions for renewal
The claimant met the performance condition (73.6% against a 70% target) but failed to apply for renewal six months before expiry, applying only about five months before the expiry date.
The application was made on 8th September 2023, delivered 13th September 2023, for a contract expiring 18th February 2024 - about five months, not six. Although RW1 admitted the request was timely, the court found that testimony incorrect on its own verification of the dates. Failure of one condition meant the employer was not bound to renew.
Whether non-renewal amounted to unfair dismissal
No unfair termination arose because the contract lapsed automatically by effluxion of time and the claimant had not met all the requirements for renewal.
Since the claimant failed the timeliness condition, the contractual promise to renew was not triggered, so the employer owed no notice or hearing. The court noted obiter that where conditions are met, the employer owes the employee an explanation for not renewing, but that situation did not arise here.
Legal principles established
#- Fixed term contracts generally do not create a legitimate expectation of renewal; renewal is at the discretion of the employer unless the contract creates such expectation.
- A legitimate expectation of renewal arises where the contract itself promises renewal upon fulfilment of specified conditions, but the employee must prove fulfilment of those conditions.
- Where an employee fails to meet all conditions for renewal, the contract lapses automatically by effluxion of time and no obligation to give notice or a hearing arises.
Court orders
#- 1.Declined reinstatement and compensatory damages under section 49 of the Employment Act as the claimant did not meet the conditions for renewal.
- 2.Directed that the claimant is entitled to terminal dues earned under the expired contract, to be computed and paid by the respondent.
- 3.Ordered the respondent to issue the claimant a certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act.
- 4.Directed each party to bear own costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the Employment Act and ELRC Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Reinstatement to the position of Technical Manager
The claimant did not meet all conditions for renewal, so the contract lapsed by effluxion of time and no unfair termination arose.
Compensation for unfair/illegal termination and terminal dues of Kshs.1,660,800.00
Non-renewal did not amount to unfair termination since the claimant failed to fulfil the contractual conditions for renewal.
Costs
Each party to bear 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.
Whether a contract with a renewal clause will be extended or not, is an issue that is at the discretion of the employer and it cannot create a legal right under the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
The burden of proof, in legitimate expectation claims, is always on the employee.
It was about five months and as such I find and hold that the claimant did not meet the timelines for requesting the employer for renewal.
Finally, I direct each party to bear own costs since the suit did not succeed to a larger extent.
Issues in the judgment
#The claimant's letter of 8th September 2023 was characterised as being within six months of expiry in paragraph 26 despite the court's own finding, and RW1's evidence conflicts with the court's computation; the court expressly rejected RW1's testimony on this point.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kirigo v Othaya Mukurwe-Ini Water Services Limited (Cause E016 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 451 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/451/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.