Kiruhi v Nusunusu Production Limited (Cause E964 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 744 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a written email resignation stands, and an alleged verbal retraction can't be proved to undo it.
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 service of summons and the statement of claim on the respondent was properly effected
- 2.Whether the claimant's employment ended by her resignation email of 27.07.2020 or by unfair/unlawful dismissal through purported acceptance of the resignation
- 3.Whether the alleged oral rescission of the resignation notice is admissible and effective
- 4.Whether the claimant proved the claims for unpaid salary, compensation for unfair termination, and refund for hiring a computer
- 5.Whether the delay in filing suit without demand amounts to an afterthought
Key legal issues
#Validity of service of summons and statement of claim
Service through email addresses not provided by or authorised by the respondent was not proper service
The court examined the affidavit of service dated 25.01.2023 and inferred from it that service was effected through email addresses not provided by the respondent or an authorised officer. Proper service being a prerequisite to a contested undefended claim, the court found service not properly effected, though it proceeded to determine the suit on its merits.
Whether termination was unfair or the employment ended by resignation
Employment ended by the claimant's resignation email of 27.07.2020; the oral rescission was inadmissible
The claimant issued a resignation notice by email dated 20/27.07.2020 citing non-payment of salary. She alleged a verbal retraction upon a promise to resolve issues, but the court held the alleged oral rescission inadmissible under the parol evidence rule. A person cannot resign and remain in employment, and the claimant did not prove she worked after resigning. The court also took judicial notice that COVID-19 was at its peak, a material fact the claimant concealed.
Whether the suit was an afterthought due to delay without demand
The suit was a mere afterthought as no demand was made between 19.11.2020 and filing on 21.12.2022
The claimant did not plead or explain making any demand on the respondent between the alleged aborted disciplinary process of 19.11.2020 and the filing of suit on 21.12.2022. The court treated the unexplained delay and absence of demand as indicating the suit was unjustified and an afterthought, contributing to its dismissal.
Claim for refund of computer hire charges
The claim was unjustified as the hire was unauthorised and unexplained
The claimant sought Kshs. 160,000.00 for hiring a computer for 16 days. The court found she did not show the hire was made with the respondent's authority and that the circumstances of the hire were not explained. The claim therefore failed.
Legal principles established
#- An alleged oral rescission of a written resignation notice is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule
- A claimant who resigns cannot continue to claim as though the employment relationship subsists; post-resignation dealings are misconceived
- An unexplained, lengthy delay in making any demand before filing suit may render the suit an afterthought
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed
- 2.No costs awarded - each side to bear own costs in effect
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (specific provision not cited in the provided judgment)
Relief refused
#Declaration that dismissal was unfair, unprocedural and unlawful
Employment ended by the claimant's own resignation email; alleged oral rescission inadmissible under the parol evidence rule
Declarations under Article 28 and Article 47 and compensation for violation of rights
The suit failed as unjustified; the resignation was validly relied upon by the respondent
12 months' compensation, salary in lieu of notice, unpaid salary March–November 2020
Claimant did not show she worked during the period; transactions after the resignation were misconceived
Refund for hiring a computer Kshs. 160,000.00
Hire not shown to be with the respondent's authority and circumstances unexplained
Certificate of service and costs
Suit dismissed with no costs
Costs
Suit dismissed with no 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.
The employment must have ended by the claimant’s resignation email of 27.07.2020. The alleged oral rescission of the resignation is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule.
The Court finds that every transaction after the resignation between the parties was misconceived and under misconception that the employment relationship was subsisting.
The suit is found to be a mere afterthought and it must fail as unjustified.
In conclusion the suit is hereby dismissed with no costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Resignation notice date stated inconsistently as 20.07.2020, 27.07.2020 and 03.08.2020 effectiveness in the claimant's pleaded case
Show cause letter and disconnection dates both stated as 23.10.2020 and 29.10.2020 in conflicting sequence
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiruhi v Nusunusu Production Limited (Cause E964 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 744 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the provided judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/744/eng@2025-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.