Otengo v Bidco Africa Limited (Cause E073 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2938 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether constructive dismissal has been proven
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant proved constructive dismissal
The claim failed; the Claimant served her notice period and did not demonstrate that the Respondent's conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach or showed the employer no longer intended to be bound by the contract
Applying the test in Maria Kagai Ligaga v Coca Cola East & Central Africa Limited, the court held the employee must show the employer, without reasonable or proper cause, conducted itself in a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage the employment relationship. The Claimant continued to work and served her notice period, and no such conduct was demonstrated.
Whether the monetary claims were proved
The monetary claims failed for want of documentary proof and formal refund requests; the vehicle-sale claim was not pleaded and not proved
The court found the Claimant produced no receipts, certified M-Pesa statements or repair invoices; the December 2023 salary and notice pay had been paid; the vehicle sale ownership details pointed to a third party; and belatedly raising the surcharge claims raised doubts about their provenance rather than satisfying the requirements for relief.
Legal principles established
#- Constructive dismissal is a repudiatory breach by the employer of the contract of employment; the employer's conduct must be so heinous and intolerable that it made it considerably difficult for the employee to continue working, and the employer must have without reasonable or proper cause conducted itself in a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage the employment relationship
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear their own 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 the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (first-instance employment claim)
Relief refused
#Declaration of constructive dismissal
The Claimant continued working and served her notice period and did not prove the Respondent's conduct was intolerable or a repudiatory breach
12 months' salary compensation of Kshs. 5,400,000/-
Constructive dismissal not proven
Kshs. 74,000/- fuel refund and Kshs. 263,000/- for expired products
No formal refund requests and no documentary proof such as receipts or certified M-Pesa statements
Notice pay and December 2023 salary
The Claimant was paid one month's salary in lieu of notice and the December 2023 salary, less a deduction of Kshs. 84,200/- as unaccounted IOU
Costs
Each party shall bear their own 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.
In sum, the Claimant has failed to prove her case on a balance of probability and the suit is dismissed. Each party shall bear their own costs as the Respondent itself was not a paragon of virtue.
The Claimant did not prove that the Respondent’s behaviour was so heinous, so intolerable, that it made it considerably dificult for her to continue working for the Respondent.
Resignation is regarded as constructive dismissal if the employer’s conduct is a significant breach of the contract of employment and that the conduct shows the employer is no longer interested in being bound by the terms of the contract.
The Claimant did not produce documentary proof such as receipts or certified M-Pesa statements.
Issues in the judgment
#The Respondent's submissions refer to claims of Kshs. 400,000/- for vehicle sale and Kshs. 300,000/- for mental anguish which were not part of the reliefs sought in the memorandum of claim, and the Respondent itself concedes this
The same Court of Appeal authority is cited with slightly different case names ('Kagai Ligaga' versus 'Maria Ligaga')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Otengo v Bidco Africa Limited (Cause E073 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2938 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of claim dated 9th September 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2938/eng@2025-10-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.