Bamburi PLC v Macharia (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E753 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1715 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 the prayers sought in the Statement of Claim, namely payment in lieu of notice and refund of school fees benefit
- 2.Whether the school fees benefit paid to the Respondent was recoverable upon her leaving employment before the end of the year
- 3.Who should pay the costs of the Claim
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent was liable to pay salary in lieu of the unexpired notice period
Yes - the Respondent was obligated to pay for the 84 days of notice not served, calculated at 84/30 x Kshs 525,332 = Kshs 1,470,904.4
Clause 5 of the contract of employment dated 21/10/2015 required three months' written notice or three months' salary in lieu of notice upon termination by the employee. The Respondent gave only 6 days' notice instead of the 90-day period envisaged. She was therefore contractually bound to pay the remainder of the notice period, which the court computed and awarded less statutory deductions, with interest from the date of judgment.
Whether the school fees benefit paid to the Respondent was refundable upon her leaving before year-end
No - the claim for refund of school fees could not stand
Clause 12 of the contract entitled the Respondent to the company's education allowance scheme in accordance with company policy, but contained no provision making the school fees refundable. CW1 conceded in cross-examination that the recoverability of the benefit was not provided in the contract. A claim for refund cannot be sustained where the contract is silent, and the Claimant bore the burden of proving that term.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to costs
No - the Claimant was not entitled to any costs
The Respondent had admitted willingness to pay the notice period owed and requested the Claimant not to file suit while she arranged payment, but the Claimant's counsel ignored the request and filed suit. In those circumstances the court found the Claimant's conduct disentitled it to costs, and declined to award the Respondent costs either.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who resigns without serving the full contractual notice period is liable to pay salary in lieu of the notice period not served
- A claim for refund of a benefit must be anchored in the contract of employment; absent such a provision, the claim fails
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant against the Respondent for payment in lieu of notice of Kshs 1,470,904.4/- less statutory deductions
- 2.Interest at court rates on the awarded amount with effect from the date of the judgment
- 3.Claim for refund of school fees benefit dismissed
- 4.No order as to costs - each party denied costs, the Claimant not entitled to any costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Employment Act contract dispute)
Relief refused
#Refund of school fees benefit of Kshs 880,044
No contractual provision required refund of school fees upon termination of employment
Costs of the suit
The Respondent had offered to pay the notice period owed and asked the Claimant not to file suit, but the Claimant filed suit anyway
Notice pay at the sum claimed (Kshs 1,187,721 as pleaded plus higher demand)
Court recalculated the entitlement at 84 days rather than the amount claimed
Costs
The Claimant is not entitled to any costs; no costs awarded to either party
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.
What the claimant is therefore entitled to from the claim is payment of the notice period which I award at kshs 1,470,904.4/- less statutory deductions with interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgment.
Under the contract there is no indication that the school fees paid is refundable after it falls due. The claim for school fees refund by the claimant cannot therefore stand.
It is therefore true that the notice period envisaged under the contract was 90 days. The respondents having only given the claimants 6 days’ notice is obligated to pay the reminder period of 84 days.= 84/30x525,332= Kshs 1,470,904.4/-.
In the circumstances, I find that the claimants are not entitled to any costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to the parties inconsistently, describing the employee as the 'Respondent' and the employer as the 'Claimant', and at times swaps roles (e.g. 'The respondents having only given the claimants 6 days’ notice'), which can confuse the direction of obligations
The pleaded notice pay claim was Kshs 1,187,721 for 24 days' notice, but the court awarded Kshs 1,470,904.4 for 84 days, exceeding the amount claimed without explanation of the arithmetic basis
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bamburi PLC v Macharia (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E753 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1715 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1715/eng@2025-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.