Haji t/a Almumin High School v Andunga (Appeal E011 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1625 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that sacking a deputy principal without a hearing was unfair, but capped his payout, blocking double compensation for the same dismissal.
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 Trial Court erred in finding that the Respondent's termination was unfair and unlawful
- 2.Whether the Trial Court was justified in awarding both statutory compensation for unfair termination (6 months' salary) and separate contractual damages (12 months' salary) for the same act of wrongful termination
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was fair and lawful
Termination was unfair and unlawful; the reasons in the two termination letters were inconsistent and the Respondent was never heard on the allegations
Two termination letters dated the same day gave inconsistent reasons - failure to meet operational requirements versus unsatisfactory performance. There was no evidence the Respondent was heard on any allegation. If the complaint was failure to supply a TSC certificate, a specific charge and hearing under Sections 41 and 45 were required; if performance, a PIP and hearing were required. Prior warnings did not cure the absence of a hearing.
Whether the Trial Court could award both statutory compensation and contractual damages
No; the award of separate contractual damages was erroneous and was set aside, leaving only the 6 months' salary statutory compensation
Section 49(1)(c) caps compensation at 12 months' salary. The Trial Court awarded 6 months under Section 49(1)(c) plus 12 months as 'compensation' or contractual damages, totalling 18 months for a single act of wrongful termination. Citing G.M.V v Bank of Africa, Eastwood v Magnox and Elizabeth Wakanyi Kibe, the Court held this departs from the legislative balance and risks turning the cap into a floor.
Legal principles established
#- Warnings are not a substitute for a proper hearing under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
- Compensation for unfair termination is capped at 12 months' salary and an employee cannot recover both statutory compensation and separate contractual damages for the same act of wrongful termination
- Employment remedies must be proportionate to the economic injury sustained and courts should discourage employees from multiplying remedies
- Inconsistent reasons in termination letters undermine the validity of a termination
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal is partly allowed
- 2.The award of damages for breach of contract in the sum of Kshs. 420,000 is set aside
- 3.The Appellant shall pay to the Respondent the equivalent of 6 months' salary in compensation for unfair and unlawful termination at Kshs. 210,000, as ordered by the Trial Court
- 4.No order on the costs of the Appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Trial Court (not specified in the judgment)
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over appeals from the Trial Court (statutory basis not expressly cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Appellant's prayer that the entire judgment in favour of the Respondent be set aside
The Court found no fault with the Trial Court's conclusion that termination was unfair and upheld the 6 months' salary compensation
Appellant's prayer for costs of the Appeal and the Trial
The Court made no order on the costs of the Appeal
Costs
No order on the costs of the Appeal (each party to bear own costs of the Appeal by implication); Trial Court costs order untouched
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 Court does not find fault with the Trial Court's conclusion that termination was unfair and unlawful.
Warnings are not a substitute for a proper hearing, under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Grant of contractual damages in addition to statutory compensation, risks turning the 12 months' salary cap, into a fioor, which is contrary to the legislative intent.
The award of damages for breach of contract in the sum of Kshs. 420,000 is set aside.
The Appellant shall pay to the Respondent equivalent of 6 months' salary in compensation for unfair and unlawful termination at Kshs 210,000, as ordered by the Trial Court.
No order on the costs of the Appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment describes the second award as Kshs. 420,000 (12 months' salary) but paragraph 19 records it as 'Kshs. 430,000', and the total is stated as Kshs. 630,000 elsewhere (which matches 420,000, not 430,000)
The Trial Court's damages structure is described inconsistently - 12 months' salary compensation plus 6 months' damages for unfair termination is described as 'an additional 12 months' salary as compensation' alongside the figure Kshs. 420,000, which equals 24 months on a monthly salary of Kshs. 35,000 implied by Kshs. 210,000 for 6 months
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Haji t/a Almumin High School v Andunga (Appeal E011 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1625 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1625/eng@2025-05-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.