Ng’eno v Board of Management Foothills School Kipipiri Miharati (Cause E031 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1214 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a former school principal resigned voluntarily, not unfairly dismissed, so he lost his Kshs. 4.29 million claim.
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's contract was terminated by the Respondent unfairly or at all
- 2.Whether the Claimant resigned
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the prayers sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the contract was unfairly terminated or the Claimant resigned
The Claimant voluntarily resigned; there was no termination by the Respondent.
The Claimant and the Director met informally, agreed on the need for leadership change, and the Claimant tendered a resignation letter dated 31st January 2024. The letter, titled 'end of tenure,' contained no hint of coercion. His subsequent e-mails asking for a 'top-up' of Kshs. 800,000 as a favour showed there was no agreed exit package; the figures were of his own creation. He bargained for the best exit he could but the claimed amounts were not enforceable in law.
Entitlement to overtime, public holiday and rest day pay
Not established; Wage Orders do not apply to a School Principal as management staff.
Overtime is payable under the Regulation of Wages (General Amendment) Order and Industrial Wage Orders, which protect low-income blue-collar workers without equal bargaining strength. A School Principal is management/white-collar staff whose terms must be found in his contract, individual or collective. The Claimant produced no contract or law entitling him to overtime, holiday or rest-day pay.
Whether the Claimant was denied annual leave
He was deemed to have taken annual leave during school vacations.
Teachers traditionally utilize annual leave during the April, August and December vacations to avoid interrupting the learning schedule, and the same applies to School Principals. The Deputy Principal confirmed this practice. The Claim was therefore not entitled to leave-based claims.
Legal principles established
#- Wage Orders protecting low-income/blue-collar workers do not automatically apply to management or white-collar staff, who must negotiate their own terms including overtime.
- Teachers, including School Principals, are deemed to utilize annual leave during school vacations.
- It is not the Court's role to remake a bargain a party failed to make for himself.
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is declined
- 2.No order on the costs
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 under the Employment Act; compensation sought under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act
Relief refused
#Compensation under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act at Kshs. 1,413,000
The Claimant voluntarily resigned; his contract was not terminated by the Respondent.
Payment in lieu of notice at Kshs. 117,750
No termination by the Respondent; the parties agreed to waive notice upon the Claimant's resignation.
Public holiday pay at Kshs. 259,050
No contractual or statutory basis established; Wage Orders inapplicable to management staff.
Normal overtime pay at Kshs. 1,369,523
No contract exhibited warranting overtime; the position of School Principal is management/white-collar outside the Wage Orders.
Off-days/rest days at Kshs. 1,130,400
Not established; no applicable wage instrument or contractual clause.
Gratuity/exit package of Kshs. 800,000
The claimed exit figure was of the Claimant's own creation, not supported by any agreement or document.
Costs
No order on the costs (each party to bear their 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.
In the end, the Court is satisfied that the Claimant voluntarily resigned. He attempted to bargain for himself the best exit package, partly informed by his long service and association with Hon. Kimunya.
There is nothing in this letter, to suggest that the Claimant's contract was unfairly terminated by the Respondent. It was not terminated at all by the Respondent. The Claimant resigned.
The Wage Orders do not aid his cause. He was in management, and ought to have negotiated and concluded for himself suitable terms and conditions of service at the very beginning, including a golden parachute to secure his landing
If he did not at any turn, make a good bargain, it is not for the Court to endorse what he considers, would have been a good bargain.
It is ordered: a. The Claim is declined. b. No order on the costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the second meeting is given as 25th January 2024 in the pleadings/evidence but 25th January 2025 in the Court's findings.
Relief total as pleaded is inconsistent (Kshs. 4,289.723 as printed against the individual sums pleaded).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ng’eno v Board of Management Foothills School Kipipiri Miharati (Cause E031 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1214 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1214/eng@2025-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.