Mathew v County Government of Meru & 3 others (Cause E033 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1840 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that even a valid reason for firing an employee is not enough—you must also give notice and a fair hearing, or the termination is unlawful.
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 termination of the claimant's contract was unfair and unlawful
- 2.Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the claimant's contract was unfair and unlawful
The revocation was grounded on a valid reason (employment beyond the mandatory retirement age of 60) but the procedure was unfair because no notice or hearing was given; the termination was therefore unfair and unlawful under section 45 of the Employment Act
Section 45 of the Employment Act requires an employer to prove a valid reason and fair procedure. The court accepted that the claimant was 62 at appointment and that the employer knew his age, but the Auditor General's report and the CPSB circular grounded a valid reason for termination. However, the respondents admitted no prior notice or hearing was given as required under section 41, so the procedure failed and the termination was unfair.
Whether the respondents' jurisdictional objection based on section 77 of the County Government Act and the exhaustion doctrine succeeds
Rejected as raised too late, since the respondents had already submitted to the court's jurisdiction
The objection was raised only in submissions, not in the pleadings at the outset. Having participated in the hearing before the ELRC, the respondents had subjected themselves to the court's jurisdiction and could not belatedly invoke the exhaustion doctrine to defeat the suit.
Whether the claimant was entitled to salary for the unexpired contract period
Declined for lack of evidence
The claim for Kshs.2,441,890 covered salary from June 2022 to September 2024, a period after the contract was revoked. No evidence supported the claim, and the court declined to award salary for a period during which the claimant did not serve.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must prove both a valid reason for termination and adherence to a fair procedure; termination without notice or a hearing violates sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act and Articles 47 and 236 of the Constitution
- A party cannot belatedly raise the exhaustion doctrine in submissions after submitting to the court's jurisdiction
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the revocation of the claimant's contract by the respondents was unfair
- 2.Costs of the suit allowed to the claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (sections 41 and 45) and Articles 47 and 236 of the Constitution; respondents' objection under section 77 of the County Government Act rejected
Relief refused
#Payment of Kshs.2,441,890 being salary for June 2022 to September 2024
No evidence adduced to support the claim, which referred to a period after the revocation of the contract
Costs
Costs of the suit allowed to the claimant, having succeeded in proving that the revocation of his contract was unfair
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.
Consequently, I find and hold that the termination/ revocation of the contract of employment was unfair and unlawful within the meaning of section 45 of the Employment Act, 2007.
The procedure followed was not in accordance with equity and justice as it violated the right to fair administrative action contrary to Article 47 and 236 of the Constitution and section 41 and 45 (2) (c) of the Employment Act.
In view of the foregoing conclusion, the claimant is entitled to declaration that the revocation of his contract by the respondents was unfair.
The last prayer sought was for costs of the suit which I have to allow because the claimant has succeeded in proving that the revocation of his contract was unfair within the meaning of section 45 of the Employment Act, 2007.
The respondents purported to raise the issue of exhaustion doctrine in the submissions which is too late since they subjected themselves to the court's jurisdiction.
Issues in the judgment
#The claimed amount appears with inconsistent figures in the judgment - Kshs.2,441,890 in the statement of claim and Kshs.2,442,890 in the defence
The claimant's testimony refers to clause 12 of the contract providing for gratuity, while the defence referred to clause 13(c) on termination without notice; the judgment does not reconcile the clause references
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mathew v County Government of Meru & 3 others (Cause E033 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1840 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1840/eng@2025-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.