Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotel, Educational Institutions and Hospitals Workers v Board of Management Kiangochi Secondary School (Cause E020 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 949 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that calling a dismissal a 'suspension' doesn't fool anyone — the school had to pay its guard Kshs.120,543 for unfair termination.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether or not the grievant was unfairly and unlawfully dismissed from his employment
- 2.Whether or not he is entitled to the reliefs sought herein
Key legal issues
#Whether the grievant was unfairly and unlawfully dismissed
The grievant did not abscond; he was dismissed effective 31st May 2021, and the suspension letter was a termination in disguise
The respondent denied dismissal and alleged abscondment after acquittal. However, the grievant testified he reported back and was told to await the Board's decision, and was eventually issued a letter certifying his employment ended 30th May 2021. RW1, posted after the letter was issued, produced no request for the letter, so her contrary evidence was hearsay. The court found the employer failed to prove valid reason or fair procedure, rendering the termination unfair.
Entitlement to notice pay, compensation and gratuity
One month's notice pay under clause 11 of the 1996 Ministry of Education guidelines (though three months were due, only one month was claimed), six months' gross salary compensation under section 49, and gratuity for 9 years under clause 20 of the 1996 Circular
Having found unfair termination, the court awarded damages under section 49 of the Employment Act. The grievant served over 5 years, entitling him to three months' notice under clause 11 of the guidelines, but he prayed for only one month. Six months' compensation reflected his 9 years of unblemished service, over a year without pay unaware of dismissal, and entitlement to gratuity. Clause 20 of the 1996 Circular provided gratuity at one month's basic pay per year worked for service over 5 years.
Whether claims for leave, off days, 2020 salary and NSSF dues were payable
Leave and off-day claims failed for want of particulars; the 2020 salary and NSSF claims were vague and/or time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act
The claimant pleaded leave and off days for five years without particulars of the periods. The claim for two unspecified months' salary in 2020 was vague and beyond the three-year limitation period in section 90. Similarly, unremitted NSSF dues for 2012/2013 were time barred and declined.
Legal principles established
#- Where a purported suspension coincides with the employer treating employment as ended, the suspension may in substance be a termination in disguise, and the burden lies on the employer under section 45(2) of the Employment Act to prove valid reason and fair procedure
- Evidence of what occurred before a witness's tenure, unsupported by documents, is mere hearsay and cannot rebut direct testimony
- A certificate of service stating the last day of work is cogent evidence of the effective date of termination
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the claimant against the respondent for payment of notice pay Kshs.8,130.50 (Kshs.7,070 plus 15% housing)
- 2.Six months' gross salary as compensation for unfair termination Kshs.48,783.00
- 3.Service gratuity for 9 years Kshs.63,630.00
- 4.Total award of Kshs.120,543.50 subject to statutory deductions
- 5.Costs of the suit to the claimant plus interest at court rates from the date of judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (sections 35, 41, 43, 45, 49, 90) and Labour Institutions Act; claim referred from failed conciliation at the Labour Office
Relief refused
#Underpayment of salary for the last five years
The applicable wage order was not the one of 2022 since employment ended 30th May 2021
Annual leave and off days for five years
No particulars of the period were pleaded
Pending salary for two months in 2020
Vague and time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act
Unremitted NSSF dues 2012/2013 (Kshs.7,200)
Time barred under section 90 of the Employment Act
Costs
The award is in addition to costs plus interest at court rates from the date of this judgment; costs of the suit to the claimant (respondent to bear 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.
Consequently, I find that the respondent terminated the grievant’s employment unlawfully and unfairly
It follows that the suspension letter dated 31st May 2021 was in fact a termination letter in disguise
Her evidence was just hearsay
Consequently, I enter judgment for him against the respondent for payment of the following: a. Notice…………Kshs.7070 + 15% as housing Kshs.8,130.50
The award is subject to statutory deductions but in addition to costs plus interest at court rates from the date of this judgment
Issues in the judgment
#The relief schedule in paragraph 1(i) states 'March 2023- May 2022' which is chronologically inconsistent and appears to be a typographical error for March 2022 - May 2021 or similar
The period of the grievant's suspension/termination is variously stated as 30th May 2021 and 31st May 2021 in different parts of the judgment
The judgment does not state the case number, the full name of the claimant union, or the name of the respondent school
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotel, Educational Institutions and Hospitals Workers v Board of Management Kiangochi Secondary School (Cause E020 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 949 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/949/eng@2025-03-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.