Monda v Aga Khan University (Cause E152 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 632 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a medical resident paid a salary counts as an employee, so the university owed him over Kshs 1.4 million for removing him without a hearing.
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, a medical resident in a postgraduate residency programme paid a stipend/salary, was an employee of the Respondent
- 2.Whether the discontinuation from the residency programme and termination of the residency appointment were procedurally fair and in accordance with the AKU Graduate Programme Student Handbook
- 3.Whether the Claimant was entitled to back salaries for the period between termination and reinstatement, cumulated leave days, payment in lieu of notice, pension contributions, and general damages
Key legal issues
#Status of the medical resident - employee or student
The court accepted that the residency arrangement carried an employment aspect notwithstanding its academic character, since the offer letter coupled training with salary, benefits and pre-employment processes
The admission letter offered the postgraduate residency and simultaneously referred to salary, benefits and costs to be made available through Human Resources and a formal written contract with pre-employment processes. The court therefore treated the engagement as training coupled with an employment opportunity, rejecting the pure-student characterisation for purposes of due process, while not making an express formal declaration of employment.
Procedural fairness of the discontinuation and termination
The termination was procedurally flawed because no disciplinary committee was constituted and the Claimant was not heard, contrary to the Student Handbook
The Student Handbook required that disciplinary breaches be reported to the Dean and referred to a Disciplinary Committee for investigation. The Respondent did not demonstrate that such a committee was constituted or that the Claimant was given an opportunity to defend himself. Because the contract had an employment aspect, due process was mandatory before termination. The late unsigned report compiled after termination could not cure this.
Effect of reinstatement on appeal
Allowing the appeal and offering reinstatement admitted the initial discontinuation was wrongful and entitled the Claimant to back pay and accrued leave
The appeals committee reinstated the Claimant on probation, which the court viewed as an admission of wrongful initial discontinuation. Reinstatement envisages restoration to the pre-termination position, including back pay. The Respondent also failed to address the Claimant's unpaid salary and leave days when reinstating him, and the court awarded salary for the six-month termination-to-reinstatement period plus cumulated leave days as prayed.
Entitlement after declining reinstatement
Having declined to return, the Claimant's entitlement was limited to unpaid salary and leave, not continuing benefits such as pension
The Claimant declined the offer to rejoin the programme, citing delay in determining his appeal. Because reinstatement was not taken up, the court did not award the 12 months' compensation or general damages sought; it limited recovery to the salary and leave unpaid as at the date of reinstatement, and left pension to be pursued under the pension scheme.
Legal principles established
#- Where an institution allows an appeal against discontinuation and reinstates a trainee, that acceptance of the appeal amounts to an admission that the initial discontinuation was wrongful
- An employee whose engagement carries an employment aspect cannot be terminated without due process, including an opportunity to be heard through a disciplinary process
- Reinstatement entitles the reinstated person to back pay, being restoration to the position held before termination, and to any accrued leave
Court orders
#- 1.Six months' salary not paid between the termination and reinstatement period: 6 x 180,000 = Kshs 1,080,000
- 2.Cumulated leave days as prayed: Kshs 151,800
- 3.One month's salary in lieu of notice: Kshs 180,000
- 4.Total award of Kshs 1,411,800 less statutory deductions
- 5.The Claimant is free to claim for his pension from the pension scheme
- 6.Respondents to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court admitted by the Claimant over employment reliefs under the Employment Act, 2007; the court noted 'the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court is admitted'
Relief refused
#General damages for emotional, mental and physical distress and professional disrepute
Not included in the final orders; the court awarded only salary arrears, leave and notice pay
Damages for breach of employment laws / 12 months' compensation for unfair termination
Claimant had declined reinstatement and the court limited the award to salary for the termination-to-reinstatement period and leave; compensation beyond that was not granted
Cumulated pension contributions of Kshs 225,000
The court did not award the claimed sum but directed the Claimant to pursue the pension scheme directly
Costs
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates w.e.f the date of this judgment
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 acceptance of the appeal was in my view an admission of a wrongful initial discontinuation of the claimant from the programme.
The respondents have not demonstrated that they constituted a disciplinary committee to investigate claims against the claimant. He was not given an opportunity to defend himself.
It is indeed true that the respondents having decided to reinstate the claimant unto the programme he was entitled to his back pay as reinstatement envisages putting him in a position he was in before the termination.
The claimant having opted not to go back to his residency, he is only entitled to payment of his salary and leave not paid.
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates w.e.f the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The date of the appeal decision is inconsistent: elsewhere the decision communicating reinstatement is dated 13th November 2022, but the Claimant's submissions describe a decision 'vide a letter dated 13th September 2022'
The date of the discontinuation report is inconsistent: it is variously referred to as dated 7th September 2022 and 7th September 2021
The date of the reinstatement letter is inconsistently given as 13th November 2020 in the Respondent's submissions, against 13th November 2022 elsewhere
The date of the Respondent's Statement of Response is inconsistent: dated 6th April 2023 in the court's narrative but 6th April 2024 in the Respondent's submissions
The claimed pension figure varies between Kshs 225,000 in the Statement of Claim and Kshs 25,000 in the closing submissions
No case number or neutral citation appears in the judgment text provided
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Monda v Aga Khan University (Cause E152 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 632 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/632/eng@2025-03-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.