Muchoki v Mediheal Group of Hospitals (Cause E051 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2739 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Walking out without resigning cost this Kenyan nurse her entire claim for unfair termination, leaving only her Certificate of Service.
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 is entitled to the reliefs sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether non-payment of salary amounted to constructive dismissal
No - the Claimant walked out without resigning, so constructive dismissal was not proved.
The court accepted that withheld salary is a repudiatory breach under the Coca Cola test and Section 17 of the Employment Act. However, constructive dismissal requires the employee to terminate employment in response to the employer's fundamental breach, ordinarily by resignation letter citing that breach. The Claimant neither pleaded nor proved resignation; her walking out was itself a breach of contract, and both parties being in breach, she cannot claim compensation.
Entitlement to the reliefs sought
Only the Certificate of Service was awarded; all monetary and declaratory reliefs were refused for want of proof.
The claimant bore the burden of proving each head of claim. No evidence supported the maternity leave claim, the salary arrears (only an unrelated pay slip produced), leave dues, or compensation for unfair termination. Service pay was barred by NSSF contribution. Only the statutory Certificate of Service under Section 51(1) was established.
Legal principles established
#- Constructive dismissal requires termination of employment by the employee on grounds of fundamental breach by the employer, ordinarily evidenced by a resignation letter citing the breach; walking out without resigning is itself a breach and bars compensation.
- An employee who is a contributing member of NSSF is not entitled to service pay.
- An employee is entitled to a Certificate of Service under Section 51(1) of the Employment Act regardless of the manner of exit.
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed except for the prayer that the Respondent issue a Certificate of Service to the Claimant pursuant to Section 51(1) of the Employment Act 2007.
- 2.Each party shall bear its costs of this suit.
- 3.Interest shall accrue at court rates from date of judgment.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Article 162(2) of the Constitution, as the ELRC); not expressly invoked in the judgment
Relief refused
#Declaration that employment was procedurally and substantively unfair and amounted to constructive dismissal
Claimant did not prove constructive dismissal; she walked out without resigning.
Kshs 1,000,000 exemplary damages for allowing only 2 months' unpaid maternity leave
No evidence that she went unpaid on maternity leave or was denied maternity leave.
12 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination
Unfair termination/constructive dismissal not proved.
5 months' salary arrears (Kshs 403,425)
Only a July 2022 pay slip was produced; no proof of employment for the period claimed.
3 months' unpaid maternity leave salary (Kshs 242,055)
Dealt with under prayer (ii); no evidence adduced.
One month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs 80,685)
Unfair termination not proved.
Service pay (Kshs 504,281)
Claimant was a contributing NSSF member.
Unpaid annual leave dues for 7 years (Kshs 282,398)
No evidence that she never went on leave.
Costs
Each party shall bear its costs of this suit.
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.
In conclusion, the claim is dismissed except for the prayer the Respondent to issues a certificate of service to the Claimant.
Each party shall bear its costs of this suit.
Interest shall accrue at court rates from date of judgment.
For these reasons I find that the Claimant has not proved constructive dismissal by the Respondent.
The Claimant's action of walking out of employment without resigning was as much a breach of her employment terms as was the Respondent's failure to pay her salary for the cited months.
The Claimant is entitled to be issued with a Certificate of Service pursuant to Section 51(1) of the Employment Act 2007.
Issues in the judgment
#The prayer sought a declaration of unfair termination and constructive dismissal, though pleadings describe walking out rather than termination; the judgment itself notes the inconsistency
Judgment is dated 3rd October 2025 but the claimant's submissions are dated 8th February 2025 and evidence was taken 16th December 2024; the case number and neutral citation are not stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muchoki v Mediheal Group of Hospitals (Cause E051 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2739 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2739/eng@2025-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.