Ojiambo v Islamic University of Kenya (Cause E187 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2267 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that cutting an employee's salary without consultation forced her resignation, awarding her over Kshs. 3 million.
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 has proved a case of constructive dismissal
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Constructive dismissal
Constructive dismissal proved. The Respondent unilaterally reduced the Claimant's salary twice, failed to pay arrears, did not consult her, and failed to issue a written contract or payslips. The employee resigned because of the employer's repudiatory conduct, satisfying the Coca Cola v Ligaga principles, including the objective test and causation.
The court applied the Coca Cola East & Central Africa Ltd v Maria Kagai Ligaga principles and Western Excavating v Sharp. It found it undisputed that the salary was reduced by Kshs. 9,887 (2019) and Kshs. 47,347 (2020-2022), with no consultation and no restoration despite promises. The Respondent's own letter of 7th July 2022 acknowledged owing arrears. The absence of consultation on significant salary cuts and the lack of a written contract and payslips rendered the relationship untenable, making it a classic constructive dismissal case.
Remedies for constructive dismissal
Claimant awarded 8 months' salary as compensation (Kshs. 1,200,000), one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 150,000), uncontested salary arrears (Kshs. 1,395,734) and leave pay for 3 years (Kshs. 315,000), with interest and costs.
The court took into account the Claimant's length of service and the fact she was pushed out by the Respondent's prolonged failure to pay agreed salary. Salary arrears were uncontested and allowed. Leave pay succeeded in the absence of leave records to the contrary. Acting DVC allowance and extra load claims failed for want of evidence.
Legal principles established
#- Unilateral variation of employment terms without consultation amounts to repudiation of the employment contract and offends the right to fair labour practices
- Failure to pay agreed salary over a prolonged period without consultation constitutes conduct sufficient to establish constructive dismissal
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant: 8 months' salary in compensation of Kshs. 1,200,000
- 2.1 month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 150,000
- 3.Salary arrears of Kshs. 1,395,734
- 4.Leave pay for 3 years of Kshs. 315,000
- 5.Total award of Kshs. 3,060,734
- 6.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 7.Claimant awarded costs of the case
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Article 41 of the Constitution referenced; contract of employment claim)
Relief refused
#Acting DVC allowance of Kshs. 180,000
Not supported by any evidence
Unpaid extra load of Kshs. 27,000
Not supported by any evidence
Costs
The Claimant will have the costs of the case.
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 Respondent’s conduct prior to the Claimant’s resignation makes a classic case of an employer forcing an employee out of employment, and I have no dificulty in reaching the conclusion that the Claimant has proved her claim of constructive dismissal.
There was no evidence of any consultation with the Claimant regarding salary cuts, which I must add were significant in amount and period.
Where the monthly salary of an employee becomes a moving target as in the case, the employee cannot efiectively discharge their duties and the employment relationship becomes untenable.
In the result, I award the Claimant eight (8) months’ salary in compensation. In making this award, I have taken into account the Claimant’s length of service and the fact that she was pushed out of employment by the Respondent’s callous conduct
This amount will attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full.
The Claimant will have the costs of the case.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number and precise cause title/citation not stated in the judgment text provided; only the parties and the court are identifiable
Internal inconsistency in the net salary figures pleaded by the Claimant (109,887 in the claim versus 108,997 in the resignation letter)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ojiambo v Islamic University of Kenya (Cause E187 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2267 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2267/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.