Murage v St Ursula Nguviu Girls Boarding Primary School (Cause E009 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2256 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that when an employer puts a promise to pay retirement gratuity in writing, that promise is legally binding and must be honoured.
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 reliefs sought, namely payment of gratuity of Kshs.399,280, salary arrears of Kshs.15,135, and a certificate of service
Key legal issues
#Entitlement to gratuity not provided for in the contract of employment
The claimant was entitled to the gratuity of Kshs.399,280 because the respondent voluntarily offered it in writing and no vitiating factors were proved.
The retirement letter of 30th April 2021 approved gratuity for 28 years of service based on basic salary, on the authority of the school's Board. The letter did not cite the contract as its basis. The respondent alleged error and honest mistake but did not demonstrate that the author lacked capacity or that the letter was not voluntarily written. Absent vitiating factors, the employer is bound to honour its written promise.
Salary arrears for April 2021
The claimant was entitled to salary arrears of Kshs.15,135 acknowledged in the respondent's letter of 30th April 2021, payment not having been proved.
The respondent acknowledged salary arrears for April 2021 in a letter of even date with the retirement letter. The burden lay on the respondent to prove payment, which it failed to discharge. The court therefore found the acknowledged sum payable to the claimant.
Certificate of service
The claimant was entitled to a certificate of service under section 51 of the Employment Act.
The certificate of service is a statutory entitlement on termination of employment. The court found the claim obvious under section 51 of the Employment Act and ordered the respondent to issue it as part of the judgment.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employer voluntarily promises an employee payment of gratuity in writing, the court will enforce that promise notwithstanding that gratuity was not a term of the contract of employment.
- A contract of employment may be constituted by a mosaic of documents, not limited to an appointment letter.
- In Kenya, gratuity is payable at the discretion of the employer unless provided for in the contract of employment.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the claimant
- 2.Respondent to pay the claimant gratuity of Kshs.399,280
- 3.Respondent to pay the claimant salary arrears of Kshs.15,135
- 4.Respondent to issue the claimant with a certificate of service
- 5.Respondent to pay costs of the suit and interest at court rate from the date of filing suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Referral of a trade dispute to the Employment and Labour Relations Court after conciliation by the Ministry of Labour
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.
Whereas an employer is not bound to pay any employee gratuity in appreciation of service rendered, once the employer voluntarily promises an employee payment of gratuity, in writing, the court ought to enforce that promise in favour of the employee.
Contract of employment is not limited to an appointment letter, but can be constituted by a mosaic of documents including appointment letters, promotion letter, CBA, Human Resource Manual, Internal Memos, Constitution, Statutes, Regulations and even Government circulars.
I enter judgment in his favour by ordering the respondent to issue him with certificate of service and pay him the following:
Gratuity …………………………………………..Kshs.399,280
Costs and interest at court rate from the date of filing suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the salary arrears figure inconsistently as Kshs.15,315 and Kshs.15,135 within the same passage.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murage v St Ursula Nguviu Girls Boarding Primary School (Cause E009 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2256 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2256/eng@2025-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.