Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially Allowed· [2025] KEELRC 2089 (KLR)

Kiugu v Jubilee Holdings Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E6038 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2089 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
16 July 2025
5,146 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~21 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed on 15th December 2022 as Manager, Marketing and Corporate Communication at a gross monthly salary of Kshs.550,000/=, sued the Respondent alleging constructive dismissal. He claimed he was assigned three additional substantive roles without extra pay for 14 months, was unfairly placed on a Performance Improvement Plan after a contested 55% rating, suffered a breach of medical privacy when a Respondent employee contacted his doctor during sick leave, and was suspended for 30 days at half pay on unverified IT infractions, prompting his resignation on 28th March 2024. He sought a declaration of constructive dismissal, 12 months' pay, leave dues, Kshs.16,445,000/= for the extra roles, compensation for unfair labour practices and breach of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, and a certificate of service. The Respondent maintained the actions were lawful and that the Claimant resigned voluntarily. The court applied the constructive dismissal principles in Coca Cola East & Central Africa Limited v Maria Kagai Ligaga and, noting loss of trust and goodwill including the medical inquiry and suspension on unverified grounds, held the Claimant was constructively dismissed. However, the claims for the three additional roles and for leave pay failed for want of proof, and the court held the PIP placement was not an unfair labour practice. The court granted a declaration of constructive dismissal, one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs.550,000/=), compensation of two months' gross pay (Kshs.1,100,000/=) given the short employment period, an order for the certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act, and costs with interest at 14% per annum from the date of judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed

Holding

Yes - the Respondent's conduct, including loss of trust, contacting the Claimant's doctor about confidential medical matters, and a suspension on unverified grounds while on sick leave, amounted to a repudiatory breach that forced the resignation

Reasoning

Applying the Coca Cola East & Central Africa Limited v Maria Kagai Ligaga principles, the court traced a series of events: a contested performance rating dropped from 91% to 55% then 54%, a grievance dismissed as an attempt to subvert the PIP, an unauthorised inquiry into the Claimant's medical details by the Respondent's Forensics Department, and a half-pay suspension on unverified IT infractions during sick leave. The court found the Respondent had lost trust and goodwill, and that the Claimant's resignation letter confirmed the employer's conduct was the effective reason for termination.

p. 10
02

Whether the Claimant was entitled to pay for three additional roles (Kshs.16,445,000/=)

Holding

No - the claim failed for want of proof

Reasoning

Although the Claimant asserted he performed three additional substantive roles across eight companies, the court found no concrete or documentary evidence supporting the allegation, noting he was aware his managerial role could involve serving other offices or group companies, and no separate contracts existed for the alleged roles. Applying sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, the court held it would be presumptuous to award compensation for unproved additional positions.

p. 9
03

Whether placement on the Performance Improvement Plan constituted an unfair labour practice

Holding

No - the employer was entitled to evaluate its employee and place him on a PIP

Reasoning

The court declined to treat the performance review process, however questionable the treatment appeared, as an unfair labour practice in itself. It held that courts cannot prevent employers from evaluating employees and taking necessary steps to maintain competitiveness. The evaluation was conducted by the line manager for 2023 and the PIP followed, which the court found lawful.

p. 9
04

Quantum of relief for constructive dismissal

Holding

One month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs.550,000/=) plus two months' gross pay compensation (Kshs.1,100,000/=), given the short duration of employment, and an order for the certificate of service

Reasoning

Having found constructive dismissal, the court awarded notice pay and compensation of two months' gross pay, expressly taking into account that the Claimant worked for the Respondent for a short period (about 14 months). The claim for additional positions and leave pay was declined for want of proof, and the certificate of service was ordered under section 51 of the Employment Act.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • Constructive dismissal is established where the employer's conduct creates a hostile environment that forces the employee to resign, applying the Coca Cola v Ligaga principles including repudiatory breach, objective test and causation
  • A party alleging a fact must prove it; he who alleges must prove under sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act
  • Courts will not interfere with an employer's legitimate performance evaluation and placement of an employee on a Performance Improvement Plan

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the Claimant's employment came to an end by virtue of constructive dismissal
  2. 2.One month's salary in lieu of notice amounting to Kshs.550,000/=
  3. 3.Compensation for wrongful and unlawful constructive dismissal equivalent to 2 months' gross pay, amounting to Kshs.1,100,000/=
  4. 4.The Respondent to issue the Claimant the certificate of service in accordance with Section 51 of the Employment Act, if not already issued
  5. 5.The Claimant shall have costs of the suit together with interest at 14% per annum from the date of delivering judgment until final payment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsections 5, 41, 43, 45, 47(5), 51
  • Fair Administrative Actions Actsections 4(3)(a), 4(3)(b), (d) and (g), 6
  • Evidence Actsections 107, 108, 109
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 27, 31, 41(1), 47
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B

Cases cited (15)

  • Oyatsi V Judicial Service Commission
    [2022] KEELRC 3
  • Misheck V Kenya Airways Ltd
    [2024] KEELRC 129
  • Combe V Combe
    (1951) 2 KB 215
  • Grace Gacheri Muriithi V Kenya Literature Bureau
    (2012) eKLR
  • Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union V James Finlay (K) Ltd
    [2013] KEELRC 422
  • Mohammed Khamis Hemed V Almasi Beverages Ltd
    [2019] eKLR
  • Jonah Ramogi Oduya V Tradewinds Aviation Services Ltd
    [2021] eKLR
  • Njuguna V Times U Sacco Ltd
    [2024] KEELRC 1249
  • Karimi V Katheri Farmers Co-op Society Ltd
    [2024] KEELRC 2195
  • Milton M. Isanya V Aga Khan Hospital Kisumu
    [2017] eKLR
  • Janine Buss V Gems Cambridge International School Ltd
    [2016] eKLR
  • Nathan Ogada Atiagaga V David Engineering Limited
    (2015) eKLR
  • Kenfreight (EA) Limited V Benson K. Nguti
    (2016) eKLR
  • Kipkepe Limited V Peterson Ondieki Tai
    (2016) eKLR
  • Coca Cola East & Central Africa Limited V Maria Kagai Ligaga
    [2015] KECA 394 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and the Constitution (Article 41 fair labour practices invoked)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kiugu v Jubilee Holdings Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E6038 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2089 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2089/eng@2025-07-16

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.