Mwadzoya v United States International University – Africa & another
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a university unfairly shortchanged an employee on maternity leave, awarding her Kshs. 500,000, but rejected her bigger claims.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether there existed a legitimate expectation for the renewal of contract
- 2.whether the Petitioner's rights to fair labour practices were violated
- 3.whether the 2nd Respondent was properly joined in the proceedings
- 4.whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Legitimate expectation of renewal of the fixed-term contract
The Petitioner reasonably expected employment for at least three years from 1st September 2024, but no legitimate expectation of renewal until the 10th year was proved
The court examined the promotional letter of 22nd November 2024, the Key Staff Change Request and Schedule C to the Contract for Services, concluding the parties intended the Lead position to run three years. The two-month offer letter of 23rd June 2025 exploited the ambiguity in the promotional letter, which had no expiry date. However, evidence of funding to 2027 did not establish an expectation of renewal through the 10-year partnership.
Unfair labour practice and variation of contract
The 1st Respondent's issuance of a two-month contract and delayed suspension amounted to passive termination, unlawful variation of terms and unfair labour practice
The promotional letter created a different role with no expiry date; unilaterally converting it to a two-month contract required the Petitioner's involvement under Section 10(5) of the Employment Act. The court found the two-month renewal was a device to run the contract out upon return from maternity leave, and the suspension breached Step V of clause 9.2.5 of the HR Manual limiting suspension to 30 days.
Denial of access to work systems and fair hearing
The Petitioner was denied access to her computer and work systems while on maternity leave, and the alteration of her terms denied her an opportunity to be heard, infringing Article 41
A WhatsApp message of 16th July 2025 to Deloitte showed her work account was locked during maternity leave, contradicting the suspension letter's suggestion that access was only suspended from 13th August 2025. The suspension letter was backdated; the Management Board minutes of 23rd May 2025 showed suspension letters were to be issued then. The court found the actions infringed the right to fair labour practices.
Discrimination claim
Discrimination claim dismissed; Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of differential treatment
Although Section 5(7) of the Employment Act places the burden on the employer, the burden does not shift automatically; the employee must first establish a prima facie case. Other than asserting differential treatment compared to colleagues whose contracts were renewed, no evidence of distinct preferential treatment was produced. The court relied on Gichuru v Package Insurance Brokers and Samson Gwer on evidential burden.
Joinder and liability of the 2nd Respondent
The 2nd Respondent ought not to have been enjoined; no employment relationship existed and the indemnity clause shielded it
Clause 2.05 of the Partnership Agreement excluded the Foundation's liability for contractual commitments with third parties, and clause 6.03 contained an indemnity. The 1st Respondent only consulted the 2nd Respondent on financial matters. Applying the statutory definition of employer and the principle that courts cannot rewrite contracts, the court found no employment relationship between the Petitioner and the Foundation.
Remedies
General damages of Kshs.500,000 awarded for violation of fair labour practices; notice pay, unfair termination compensation and gratuity refused
Guided by John Gakuo on compensation for constitutional violations, the court awarded general damages. Gratuity was refused as proof of payment was availed; notice pay and 12 months' compensation were refused because unfair termination was not proved, the contract having ended by effluxion of time.
Legal principles established
#- Whether a legitimate expectation arose is an objective legal question, not merely a factual one
- An ambiguous contractual term is construed contra proferentem against the drafting party
- The burden of proving discrimination does not shift automatically; the employee must first establish a prima facie case
- A court cannot rewrite a contract between parties unless coercion, fraud or undue influence are pleaded and proved
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the 1st respondent violated the petitioner's right to fair labour practices
- 2.General damages in the sum of Kshs.500,000.00
- 3.Costs of the suit at ½ scale
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 25, 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Employment Act; Fair Administrative Action Act
Relief refused
#Declaration of violation of right to fair hearing under Article 47 and Fair Administrative Action Act
Court found unfair labour practice and violation of fair administrative action but framed the declaration as breach of fair labour practices only
Declaration of legitimate expectation of renewal of employment contract
Expectation of three years found, but no evidence of expectation of continuous renewal to the 10th year
Declaration of unlawful termination
No evidence that the Petitioner was unfairly terminated; contract ended by effluxion of time
Declaration of degrading and discriminatory treatment contrary to Articles 27 and 28
Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination
One month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 392,718.00)
Unfair termination not proved
Contractual gratuity at 10% of last annual salary (Kshs. 471,261.60)
Gratuity already paid
Twelve months' earnings as damages for unfair termination (Kshs. 4,712,616.00)
Unfair termination not proved
General damages for degrading and inhuman treatment, psychological torture, mental anguish and reputational injury beyond the Kshs.500,000 awarded
Harassment and birth complications not proved; no medical reports or expert witness
All reliefs against the 2nd Respondent (Mastercard Foundation)
No employment relationship with the 2nd Respondent; indemnity clause excluded its liability
Costs
Costs of the suit at ½ scale, payable by the 1st respondent to the petitioner.
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, judgment is entered infavour of the petitioner against the 1st respondent in the following terms: a. Declaration that the 1st respondent violated the petitioner's right to fair labour practices. b. General damages in the sum of Kshs.500,000.00 c. Costs of the suit at ½ scale.
the court is of the view that the Respondent's action amounted to a passive termination and an unlawful variation of the Petitioner's employment terms.
Changing the terms therefore to a two-month contract would require the Petitioner's involvement.
The employee must in the first instance establish a prima facie case of discrimination for the burden of proof to shift to the employer.
It is therefore imminent that the intention of the parties was for the Lead position to run for a three-year period from 1st September 2024.
The court finds that the Respondent's action amounted to unfair labour practice and in violation of the Petitioner's right to fair administrative action.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment header names 'JK GAKERI, J' but signature block reads 'DR. JACOB GAKERI, JUDGE'
Judgment dated 23 September 2026 in a petition filed 2025; neutral citation year 2026 consistent but date appears futuristic relative to filing
Petitioner's supplementary affidavit sworn by a third party (Eannes Ongus), not the Petitioner herself
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwadzoya v United States International University – Africa & another", Case Analysis (2026). Employment and Labour Relations Petition 232 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2559/eng@2026-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.