Wahome v County Government of Laikipia & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 776 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a former county official four months' unpaid salary but refused compensation for the rest of her contract, ruling she had resigned.
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 exit of the claimant from the 1st respondent as Director of Peace and Development disqualified her from holding the office of the 3rd respondent's CEO
- 2.Whether the 1st respondent unfairly terminated the claimant's contract by the letter dated 17th January 2023
- 3.Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant's exit from the 1st respondent disqualified her from the office of CEO of the 3rd respondent
No - the requirement in Article XII of the MOU was an entry requirement only; the CEO contract with the 3rd respondent was separate and its lapse was not affected by the end of the contract with the 1st respondent.
The court construed the 9th March 2021 appointment letter, which contained clear and unambiguous terms on term of office, salary and termination, with no suggestion that the appointment depended on continued service with the 1st respondent. Applying the principle against rewriting contracts, the court held that had the parties intended disqualification on exit, they would have said so expressly in the MOU or contract.
Whether the letter of 17th January 2023 amounted to unfair termination by the 1st respondent
No - the 1st respondent did not terminate the CEO contract; it merely communicated it would no longer pay the salary on behalf of the 3rd respondent. The claimant's departure was a resignation, and although constructive dismissal was evident, it was not pleaded.
The claimant's contract with the 1st respondent was co-terminus with the Governor's term and lapsed on 30th September 2022, with terminal dues paid. The two contracts were separate and parallel. The letter of 17th January 2023 was a response to her demand for unpaid salary, not a termination of the 3rd respondent's contract by the appointing authority, which never passed any resolution removing her.
What reliefs is the claimant entitled to
She is entitled to gratuity for the 1st respondent contract and unpaid salary of Kshs.140,440 for four months (October 2022 to January 2023), totaling Kshs.561,760, payable jointly and severally by the respondents; claims for benefits of the unserved contract period and unfair termination compensation were declined.
Having found the claimant lawfully in office as CEO until she resigned in January 2023, and that the 1st respondent undertook by letter dated 12th March 2021 to pay her salary until the 3rd respondent could do so, the 1st respondent was bound to continue paying until she ceased employment or revoked the undertaking. Claims for post-resignation salary and gratuity had no legal or contractual basis.
Legal principles established
#- A court has no jurisdiction to rewrite a contract between parties but only to enforce it as agreed
- Future contractual benefits are not payable upon premature termination unless the contract expressly provides otherwise
- A requirement that a CEO be drawn from heads of Peace and Development departments in member counties is an entry requirement only, not a continued requirement
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment for the claimant against the respondents jointly and severally for unpaid salary of Kshs.561,760.00
- 2.Costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of filing the suit
- 3.The award is subject to statutory deductions
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 (ELRC Procedure Rules referenced)
Relief refused
#Compensation for lost salary, allowances and gratuity for the unserved term (to March 2024) and damages for unfair termination of the contract with the 3rd respondent
No legal or contractual basis; unfair termination did not occur; future contractual benefits are not payable upon premature termination unless expressly stipulated
Salary in lieu of notice and compensation for unfair termination
Unfair termination was not established; the claimant resigned
Costs
Costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of filing the suit, awarded to the claimant
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.
I enter judgment for the claimant against the respondents, jointly and severally as follows: a. Unpaid salary…………………………Kshs.561,760.00 b. Costs and interest at court rates from the date of filing the suit. c. The award is subject to statutory deductions.
The said requirement was in my view only an entry requirement but not a continued requirement.
Consequently, the issue of unfair termination does not arise although a case of constructive dismissal is evident. Since the claimant did not plead constructive dismissal, I will not say more.
A court of law cannot re-write a contract between the parties.
Future contractual benefits are not payable to an employee upon premature termination of the contract unless the contract expressly stipulates otherwise.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers inconsistently to the 1st respondent's salary undertaking letter, once as dated 12th March 2021 and later as dated 12th March 2023, though context shows the same letter
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wahome v County Government of Laikipia & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 776 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 22nd March 2024 (ELRC, Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/776/eng@2025-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.