Kamwaro v Narok County Assembly (Cause E015 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2386 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A county assembly must pay a former speaker's assistant Kshs. 592,860 after firing him without notice, a hearing, or a valid written contract.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether termination of the Claimant's contract was procedurally and substantively fair and lawful
- 2.Whether the Claimant merits the prayers sought
Key legal issues
#Nature of the Claimant's contract - fixed-term tied to the speaker's tenure or term-indefinite
The contract was term-indefinite; the letter of appointment did not tie service to the tenure of a specific speaker
The letter of appointment did not specify a period of service or link service to the sitting speaker's tenure. No other terms and conditions of service from the County Assembly Service Board were exhibited. Under Sections 10(2)(d),(e) and 10(7) of the Employment Act, the burden was on the employer to prove the contractual duration; failing that, the Court upholds the Claimant's position that he was permanent and pensionable on a term-indefinite contract.
Whether termination was procedurally and substantively fair and lawful
Termination was unfair and unlawful - no valid reason, no notice and no hearing
The release letter disclosed no valid reason; the Claimant's duties did not cease with the transition of speakers. The Respondent bore the burden under Section 43 to show valid reason and did not comply with the minimum standards of fairness under Sections 41 and 45. The Claimant was neither notified of termination nor given a hearing, and was not redeployed like other staff of the outgoing speaker.
Whether a redundancy situation existed requiring Section 40 compliance
No redundancy situation existed and redundancy was never communicated to the Claimant
The Court found the Claimant's role of managing the speaker's diary, meetings and travel did not diminish with the election of a new speaker. Had the Respondent considered the position redundant, it should have followed Section 40; instead it pleaded effluxion of time, a reason unsupported by the contract.
Remedies payable for unfair termination
Compensation of 5 months' gross salary, 1 month's notice pay, and 8 days' September 2017 salary granted; other heads refused
The Claimant served 4.5 years, did not contribute to the termination, was paid nothing on termination and had a term-indefinite contract. Reinstatement was statutorily stale. Leave, leave traveling allowance and gratuity claims were not established; only the statutory minimum notice of one month was merited.
Legal principles established
#- Where the employer fails to produce a written contract or written particulars, the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of contract falls on the employer
- An employee attached to the office of the speaker, not a specific speaker, is not affected in his contract by the transition from one speaker to another
Court orders
#- 1.It is declared that termination of the Claimant's contract, was unfair and unlawful
- 2.The Respondent shall pay the Claimant the equivalent of 5 months' gross salary in compensation for unfair and unlawful termination at Kshs. 469,950
- 3.1-month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 93,990
- 4.8 days' salary for work done in the month of September 2017, at Kshs. 28,920 (total Kshs. 592,860)
- 5.Certificate of service to issue
- 6.Costs to the Claimant
- 7.Interest granted at court rate, from the date of Judgment, till satisfaction of the Judgment in full
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (Court determining an employment claim under the Employment Act)
Relief refused
#Reinstatement without loss of benefits
Not practicable, reasonable and statutorily stale, termination having taken place 8 years earlier in 2017
Redundancy benefits / compensation on redundancy basis
Termination was never communicated as redundancy and the Court found no redundancy situation
3 months' salary in lieu of notice
No contractual provision for 3 months' notice; only minimum 1-month notice under Section 35(1)(c) granted
30 days' accrued annual leave and leave traveling allowance
Claimant did not establish when leave accrued or a contractual clause granting leave traveling allowance
Gratuity for 5 years' service under SRC guidelines
The SRC guidelines pleaded were not exhibited before the Court
Salary for 15 days worked in September 2017
Termination effective 8th September 2017 entitled him only to 8 days' salary
Service pay at Kshs. 463,512
Not established/awarded in the final orders
Costs
Costs to the Claimant
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.
It is declared that termination of the Claimant’s contract, was unfair and unlawful.
The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant: equivalent of 5 months’ gross salary in compensation for unfair and unlawful termination at Kshs. 469,950; 1-month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs. 93,990; and 8 days’ salary for work done in the month of September 2017, at Kshs. 28,920 – total Kshs. 592,860.
The Court is persuaded that termination was not in accordance with the minimum standards of procedural and substantive fairness, under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. It was unfair and unlawful.
Without a contract exhibited by the Respondent to the contrary, showing that his term was limited, the Court upholds his position that he was in a term-indefinite contract.
There was no reason to terminate the Claimant’s contract, more so without a hearing and notice, simply because a new speaker was in ofice.
Costs to the Claimant.
Interest granted at court rate, from the date of Judgment, till satisfaction of the Judgment in full.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamwaro v Narok County Assembly (Cause E015 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2386 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No. 67 of 2020 (as registered). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2386/eng@2025-08-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.