Kimani v Technobrain Kenya Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E478 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1173 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to enforce an unsigned training bond against a former employee, but cut his payout because he resigned without notice.
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 is entitled to terminal dues of Kshs. 502,333.89 as claimed
- 2.Whether the Claimant was discriminated against in being required to repay training costs while other employees were not
- 3.Whether there was a valid and enforceable training bond between the Claimant and the Respondent
- 4.Whether the Claimant is liable to the Respondent for one month's salary in lieu of notice following his resignation without notice
- 5.Who bears the costs of the claim and counterclaim
Key legal issues
#Enforceability of the training bond
The training bond was not signed by the Claimant or any other signatory and is unenforceable; the Respondent cannot recover the training costs
The Respondent wanted the Claimant to sign an undertaking before the South Africa training but he declined. The Respondent's own witness confirmed none of the three signatories signed the bond, rendering it unenforceable. The court held the Respondent had a duty to ensure the bond was signed before the training and cannot benefit from its own laxity. Estoppel and implied-terms arguments did not avail the Respondent.
Discrimination claim
The discrimination claim failed for want of proof; the Claimant produced no documentary evidence that other similarly trained employees were not charged
The Claimant alleged that colleagues, including David Ayiele, who underwent the same South Africa training were not asked to repay training costs, amounting to discrimination. He produced no documents to prove this. The Respondent contended the allegations were hearsay and employee information confidential. The court found the claim without merit and dismissed it.
Terminal dues and notice pay
The Claimant is entitled to terminal dues comprising salary to 29/9/2017 and 48 accrued leave days, less one month's pay in lieu of the notice he did not give on resigning
The Claimant resigned without giving the contractual one month's notice. The court therefore deducted one month's salary (Kshs 150,196) from the computed dues of Kshs 427,360.22 (salary and 48 leave days), awarding a balance of Kshs 277,164.22. The Respondent's counterclaim for notice pay was subsumed in this set-off and its counterclaim otherwise dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- An unexecuted training bond cannot bind an employee or compel payment of training costs; the employer must ensure the bond is signed before the training and cannot benefit from its own laxity
- An employee who resigns without giving the contractual one month's notice is liable to have one month's pay in lieu of notice deducted from terminal dues
Court orders
#- 1.Award to the Claimant of salary and wages up to 29/9/2017 of Kshs 150,196/-
- 2.Award of 48 days leave of Kshs 277,164.22
- 3.Total award Kshs 427,360.22 less Kshs 150,196 in lieu of notice, balance Kshs 277,164.22 payable to the Claimant
- 4.Dismissal of the claim for discrimination
- 5.Dismissal of the Respondent's counterclaim
- 6.Respondents to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Relief refused
#General damages for discrimination under Articles 27, 41 and 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Actions Act
The claim was not proved; allegations that other employees were not charged were hearsay and unsupported by documents
Claim for per diem allowances for service in Ethiopia
Not awarded in the final orders; the court awarded only salary and leave dues less one month's pay in lieu of notice
Respondent's counterclaim for Kshs 762,303 training costs and Kshs 155,376 salary in lieu of notice
The training bond was never signed and therefore could not bind the Claimant; the counterclaim was found without merit
Costs
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgement.
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 bond having not been signed cannot therefore in the circumstances bind the claimant or compel him to pay the respondents the training costs. It was indeed the duty of the respondents to ensure the same was signed before the training which they failed to do and so cannot benefit from their own laxity.
It is therefore my finding that the claimant is entitled to his terminal dues less the one-month pay in lieu of notice not given.
The claim for discrimination is found without merit and is dismissed. The counter claim is also found without merit and is dismissed accordingly.
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at Court rates with efiect from the date of this judgement.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in dates: the Respondent's Statement of Response pleads the Claimant resigned on 2nd September 2020, while the Claimant's pleadings and evidence place the resignation on 2nd September 2017
Training dates are stated inconsistently: the pleading says training ran from 3rd April 2016 to 16th July 2016, while the Claimant's testimony says 3rd April 2017 to 16th April 2017, and the judgment says the training was on 8/2/2017
The notice-pay figure appears as Kshs.155,376 in the counterclaim but Kshs. 155,356 in the Respondent's submissions
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimani v Technobrain Kenya Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E478 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1173 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1173/eng@2025-04-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.