Kihara v Ekaterra Tea Kenya Plc (Cause E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2537 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan manager who quit citing lack of appreciation lost his constructive dismissal claim and must pay his former employer over KShs. 624,000.
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 was constructively dismissed by the Respondent
- 2.Whether the Claimant merits the prayers sought in the Claim
- 3.Whether the Respondent's Counterclaim is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed
Constructive dismissal not established; resignation was voluntary
The court applied the principles in Coca Cola East and Central Africa Ltd v Maria Kagai Ligaga: the employee must show repudiation of fundamental contract terms leaving no alternative but to resign. The Claimant resigned the same day he replied to the show-cause letter, before receiving the Respondent's response, thereby circumventing the process. The PIP was an ordinary performance-management measure; his resignation letter did not mention PIP, discrimination or compulsion, only lack of appreciation, which is not an enforceable contractual obligation.
Whether the Claimant merits the prayers sought
All prayers declined
With constructive dismissal not made out, the declaration, damages, notice pay, costs and interest fell away. The annual leave prayer failed for want of evidence. A certificate of service had already been issued per the Respondent, so no order for reissue was necessary.
Whether the Respondent's Counterclaim is merited
Counterclaim allowed at Kshs. 624,926
The contract required either party to give 2 months' notice of termination or pay 2 months' salary in lieu. The Claimant resigned abruptly on 22nd December 2023 without notice or payment in lieu, and his explanation of lack of time was rejected. The court entered judgment for the Respondent with interest from the date of judgment.
Legal principles established
#- Constructive dismissal requires breach/repudiation of fundamental terms of the employment contract leaving the employee no alternative but to resign
- Lack of appreciation, recognition and reward does not in itself constitute a hostile work environment
- An employee who resigns immediately upon replying to a show-cause letter, before the employer responds, circumvents the disciplinary process and cannot claim constructive dismissal
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is declined
- 2.The Counterclaim is allowed at Kshs. 624,926
- 3.Interest allowed on the Counterclaim, from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full
- 4.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and E&LRC (Procedure) Rules, 2025 (Rule 68(5) relied on for electronic delivery)
Relief refused
#Declaration of constructive dismissal
Claimant failed to establish a hostile work environment or breach of fundamental contract terms
Damages for unfair constructive dismissal (12 months' salary)
Constructive dismissal not established
2 months' salary in lieu of notice
Resignation was voluntary and abrupt
22 days pending annual leave
No evidence adduced
Certificate of Service
Respondent pleads it was issued; court saw no need to order reissue
Costs
No order on costs
Costs
No order on the costs.
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.
There was nothing hostile about the PIP. It was an ordinary process in which the Employer raised concerns about the performance of its Manufacturing Manager, the Claimant herein.
Employers are not legally obliged to appreciate and value their Employees. Lack of appreciation, recognition and reward do not in themselves, constitute a hostile work environment.
Constructive dismissal involves breach of fundamental terms of the contract of employment. The Employee must demonstrate that the Employer has acted in repudiation of fundamental terms of the contract of employment.
The Claimant did not issue notice or pay to the Respondent 2 months' salary in lieu of notice, as contracted.
a. The Claim is declined. b. The Counterclaim is allowed at Kshs. 624,926. c. Interest allowed on the Counterclaim, from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full. d. No order on the costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The Respondent's name does not appear in the body of the extract provided; the parties are referred to only as Claimant and Respondent
The case number and neutral citation are not printed in the extract provided
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kihara v Ekaterra Tea Kenya Plc (Cause E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2537 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2537/eng@2025-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.