Koech v Stabex International Limited (Cause E176 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 3743 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled an employee who emailed a resignation letter and accepted his dues resigned voluntarily, so his unfair termination claim failed.
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 wrongfully terminated by the Respondent and or he resigned voluntarily.
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was wrongfully terminated or resigned voluntarily
The Claimant resigned voluntarily; he failed to establish constructive dismissal
The court applied section 47(5) of the Employment Act, placing the burden on the Claimant to show unfair termination. It adopted the contractual test of constructive dismissal from Western Excavating v Sharp and Coca Cola v Ligaga, requiring a fundamental breach, resignation in response, and no delay or waiver. The Claimant showed no breach, force or coercion; his unsigned resignation letter was emailed by him and its contents never denied. Dues including leave pay were tabulated and paid on 8th March 2021.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought
All reliefs were refused as the claim was unmerited
Having found a voluntary resignation with dues tabulated and paid on 8th March 2021, including leave pay, the court held no compensation for unfair termination or notice pay was payable. The March 2022 salary claim failed because employment had ended in February 2021. The deduction of shortages and advances was never objected to, and damages for breach of contract failed for want of specific pleading and proof.
Legal principles established
#- Burden of proving unfair termination rests on the employee, while justifying the grounds rests on the employer
- A party who sends a letter by email and does not deny its contents is estopped from denying reliance on it
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's claim is found unmerited and is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
- 3.It is so ordered
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Parties agreed the court was properly seized of the matter excluding the medical expenses claim
Relief refused
#Declaration of wrongful, malicious and/or unfair termination
Claimant failed to prove constructive dismissal; he resigned voluntarily
Salary for March 2022
Claimant resigned in February 2021
Compensation for unfair termination (12 months' salary) and one month's notice pay
No unfair termination; termination was at the employee's own instance
Accrued medical bills, leave pay and liquidated damages for breach of contract
Damages for breach of contract had to be specifically pleaded and proved; no breach illustrated
Costs
Each party bearing their own costs of the 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 Claimant’s claim is found unmerited and is here dismissed with each party bearing for the costs of the suit.
It is not in dispute that there existed employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent where the Claimant was employed in May, 2020 and he worked for 9 months before the cessation of employment.
The Claimant is therefore estopped from denying the reliance on the said letter. When he never denied the contents of the said letter or writing the same.
In this case the Claimant never illustrated any breach of contract which could cause him resign or any force or coercion towards resigning coupled with the fact that the Claimant failed to illustrate that unfair termination occurred
Issues in the judgment
#Respondent's Response is dated 10th June, 2024 while submissions of the Respondent are dated 28th July, 2025 and both parties' cases were heard on 4th June, 2025, yet the Claimant's submissions are dated 4th June, 2024 - internal date sequence is inconsistent
Closing formula reads 'It is so ordered' immediately after the costs order but is numbered as a separate paragraph '5.' in the disposition section
Signature block shows 'PRESIDING JUDGE-APPEALS DIVISION' though this is a first-instance claim, and the typed name 'ABUODHA NELSON JORUM' does not appear as a coram entry
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koech v Stabex International Limited (Cause E176 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 3743 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 22nd March, 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3743/eng@2025-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.