Ronoh v Taita Taveta University & another (Cause 3 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1087 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a university employee's summary dismissal for absenteeism, awarding only unpaid leave pay because discrimination claims lacked proof.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was discriminatory treatment of the claimant by the respondents
- 2.Whether there was wrongful, unlawful and unfair termination of employment
- 3.Whether the remedies sought should be issued
- 4.Who should pay the costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant was subjected to discriminatory treatment
The claim of discriminatory treatment failed; the claimant did not prove different treatment of similarly placed employees or discrimination on account of disability
The claimant was employed under a written contract at maximum grade 12 salary with only house and commuter allowances; he did not identify similarly placed employees earning more. His disability discrimination claims (gate incident, lack of support staff) were mere denials without evidence; he admitted having six support officers in the VC's office whom he never sought assistance from. Protections under Article 27 and Section 5 should not be applied generally to make a case where none exists.
Whether the summary dismissal was wrongful, unlawful and unfair
The dismissal was justified and valid; the reasons were fair and the procedure complied with Section 41 of the Employment Act
The claimant absented himself from work on numerous dates without authority and wilfully failed to complete assigned tasks (Council Charter and legal compliance audit) despite repeated reminders, both constituting gross misconduct under Section 44(4). He was issued a show-cause notice, supplied with particulars, allowed a representative at the disciplinary hearing, and given an appeal which was heard and dismissed.
Whether the remedies sought should issue
Only leave pay of Ksh. 114,473.70 was awarded, less Ksh. 76,315.80 for 22 days absent without leave; all other remedies were refused
Compensation and notice pay are unavailable where summary dismissal is justified. The employer filed no annual leave records, so leave pay was computed on basic salary for 18 months under Section 28 of the Employment Act. Under section 19(1)(c), one day's wages for each day absent without leave is deductible.
Legal principles established
#- Workplace discrimination is prohibited under the Constitution and the Employment Act, and the party alleging discrimination must demonstrate the different treatment and on what grounds
- Absence from work without permission or authority and wilful neglect of duty constitute gross misconduct under Section 44(4) of the Employment Act justifying summary dismissal
- An employer may deduct a day's wages for each working day an employee absents himself without leave under section 19(1)(c) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Award of leave pay of Ksh. 114,473.70 to the claimant, based on basic salary of Ksh. 104,067 for 18 months
- 2.Deduction of Ksh. 76,315.80 from the final dues for the 22 days the claimant was absent from work without leave
- 3.Each party to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (court not expressly stated to invoke a provision; matter is an employment claim under the Employment Act)
Relief refused
#Declaration that employment was terminated unlawfully, wrongfully and unfairly; reinstatement; damages for wrongful termination of Ksh. 2,451,372; pecuniary damages for discrimination of Ksh. 24,000,000; general damages of Ksh. 15,000,000; notice pay of 3 months; outstanding pension remittances; and Ksh. 70,000 per month for 44 months in allowances
The summary dismissal was justified and followed due process; the claim of discrimination lacked merit and evidence; compensation and notice pay are unavailable where summary dismissal is justified
Claim for pension remittances from March to May 2016
Pension regulations are separate matters in employment; the claimant should address the relevant agency at the shop floor
Costs
Each party to bear its 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.
The analysis above, the claim is without merit save for the award of leave pay at ksh. 114,473.70 To be paid less Ksh. 76,315.80 for the days absent from work. In this regard, each party is to bear its costs.
The compensation and notice pay claims are unavailable in cases where summary dismissal is justified.
The party claiming to be discriminated against must demonstrate the difierent treatment and on what grounds.
The protections under Article 27 of the constitution and Section 5 of the Employment Act are meant to redress serious violations where there is a breach.
The reasons leading to the termination of employment by summary dismissal were justified and valid.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the disciplinary hearing notice and hearing (notice dated 26 February 2019, hearing 7 March 2019 in the response; the claimant's pleadings refer to a hearing on 26 February 2019)
The summary dismissal notice lists internally inconsistent dates of absence (e.g. 29 October 2019 and 30 October 2019 in a 2019 notice covering 2018 absences)
The respondents' written submissions were filed late, after the agreed filing date, and the claimant filed none
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ronoh v Taita Taveta University & another (Cause 3 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1087 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1087/eng@2025-04-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.