Radoli v County Govrnment of Tharaka Nithi & another (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E005 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2461 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that suspending an employee indefinitely on half pay without explanation was a fundamental breach, entitling him to quit and claim compensation.
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 suit is premature by dint of the exhaustion doctrine
- 2.Whether the Respondents infringed the constitutional rights of the petitioner
- 3.Whether the respondents constructively dismissed the petitioner
- 4.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit was premature under the exhaustion doctrine (section 87(2) PSC Act)
The suit was not premature because there were no pending disciplinary proceedings or formal decision against the petitioner before he filed suit; the show cause letter was served after filing.
Section 87(2) of the PSC Act presupposes a decision made by a competent person within the county public service on a matter within the PSC's jurisdiction. Here the dispute concerned indefinite suspension and an alleged resignation, with no formal decision or disciplinary proceedings on record before filing. The show cause letter was served only after the suit was filed. Further, constitutional violations fall squarely within the ELRC's jurisdiction under Articles 162(2) and 165(5).
Whether the respondents violated the petitioner's constitutional rights
Yes - the respondents breached his rights to fair labour practices and fair administrative action under Articles 41 and 47 by stopping his salary without notice, falsely alleging resignation, and placing him on indefinite suspension on half salary without reason.
The respondents stopped the petitioner's salary from June 2023 without notice or hearing, told him informally he had resigned when he had not, and paid him half salary from January 2024 for seven months without explanation. No show cause letter preceded the half pay. The cumulative conduct, including indefinite suspension, breached Articles 41 and 47. The allegation that he failed to attend the Staff and Skills Audit was not proved as he was never notified of the exercise.
Whether the petitioner was constructively dismissed
Yes - the indefinite suspension and unilateral half pay constituted a repudiatory breach entitling the petitioner to quit and treat the contract as constructively dismissed, amounting to unfair and unlawful termination.
Applying the Coca Cola v Ligaga principles, the burden was on the employee to show intolerable conditions or fundamental breach. Payment of all arrears by December 2023 effectively reinstated him and ended the water-spillage matter; the subsequent unilateral, unexplained half salary for seven consecutive months was conduct he was not bound to tolerate. He proved on a balance of probability that the respondents' conduct left him no option but to quit without notice.
Entitlement to reliefs
Partially allowed: declarations, notice pay, three months' compensation, unpaid half salary, pro rata gratuity and certificate of service granted; remainder-of-contract salary and salary for months after termination declined.
Having found violation of constitutional rights and constructive dismissal, the court awarded compensation of three months' gross salary given less than two years' service and absence of contributory misconduct; pro rata gratuity because the contract was terminated prematurely by the respondents; one month's salary in lieu of notice; and half salary for January to June 2024 supported by bank statements. Certificate of service is a statutory right under section 51 of the Employment Act.
Legal principles established
#- An employer's right to suspend an employee pending investigations must be exercised fairly and for a specific period.
- Unilateral, unexplained indefinite suspension on half salary amounts to a fundamental/repudiatory breach entitling the employee to quit and sue for constructive dismissal.
- Where no formal decision or pending disciplinary proceedings existed before filing suit, the exhaustion requirement under the PSC Act does not apply.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the respondents have violated the petitioner's constitutional rights and unlawfully dismissed him from service
- 2.Respondents to pay the petitioner Kshs. 440,856.90 comprising notice Kshs. 36,050, compensation Kshs. 108,150, unpaid half salary Kshs. 117,786.90 and gratuity Kshs. 178,870, subject to statutory deduction
- 3.Petitioner granted certificate of service
- 4.Costs of the suit to the petitioner plus interest at court rates from the day of judgment until payment in full
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 162(2) and 165(5) of the Constitution (jurisdiction of the ELRC over employment and labour relations and alleged violations of the Bill of Rights)
Relief refused
#Unpaid salary and benefits for the remainder of the five-year contract period (Kshs. 2,272,241.00)
Not supported by evidence; the contract allowed termination before lapse of term by one month's notice or salary in lieu of notice; one month's salary in lieu of notice was awarded instead
Salary for July, August and September 2024 and thereafter
The employment had come to an end
Damages equivalent to 12 months' pay for unlawful termination
Court awarded only three months' gross salary given short service of less than two years and no contributory misconduct
Costs
Costs of the suit to the petitioner, plus interest at court rates from the day of judgment until payment in full.
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.
I enter judgment for the petitioner as follows: a. Declaration that the respondents have violated the petitioner's constitutional rights and unlawfully dismissed him from service.
Notice Kshs.36,050 Compensation Kshs. 108,150 Unpaid half salary Kshs. 117786.90 Gratuity Kshs. 178,870 Total Kshs. 440,856.90
The petitioner is granted certificate of service, costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the day of this judgment until payment in full.
Whereas an employer has the right to suspend an employee from service pending investigations, that said right ought to be exercised fairly for a specific period.
I find that the suit is not prematurely before the court.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the petitioner in the feminine gender at one point, inconsistent with the rest of the judgment which uses masculine pronouns.
The judgment states both that the petitioner's salary was stopped from June and that he received full salary for June to November/December 2023 in arrears, which requires reading together as a delay rather than total non-payment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Radoli v County Govrnment of Tharaka Nithi & another (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E005 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2461 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 15th August 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2461/eng@2025-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.