Tom Ongondi Omollo v International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a fixed-term contract ending on a set date gives no right to renewal, and refused to block the termination.
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 has established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant an interim injunction restraining termination of his fixed-term contract
- 2.Whether the Claimant would suffer irreparable damage not compensable by damages if the injunction is not granted
- 3.Whether the Claimant had a legitimate expectation of renewal of his fixed-term contract beyond 30th September 2026
Key legal issues
#Legitimate expectation of renewal of a fixed-term contract
No legitimate expectation arises from a fixed-term contract with a clear sunset date and an express no-obligation-to-extend clause
The contract letter of 4th May 2026 expressly stated the Federation was under no obligation to extend and that notice of non-extension was included. The Claimant signed accepting these terms. Following Court of Appeal authority, fixed-term contracts carry no expectations beyond expiry absent express or conduct-based indication of renewal.
Whether disguised redundancy or retaliation claims justify an interim injunction
Such assertions are of little value where the Respondent's actions rest on the contract's sunset date; no obligation to justify non-renewal exists
The court held that allegations of disguised redundancy under section 40 of the Employment Act and retaliatory motive are matters for trial, but they do not establish a prima facie case because effluxion of time itself justifies termination of a fixed-term contract.
Irreparable damage and adequacy of damages
Loss is quantifiable as six months' emoluments and section 49 remedies (reinstatement/re-engagement) remain available
The contract was for six months; any renewal would likely be for a similar term, so the loss is the Claimant's emoluments for six months, compensable by damages. Section 49 of the Employment Act also entitles an improperly terminated employee to reinstatement or re-engagement, negating irreparable loss.
Legal principles established
#- A fixed-term contract of service carries no expectation of renewal unless the employer has expressly or by conduct signified the possibility of extension
- An employer need not give reasons for non-renewal of a fixed-term contract; the reason is inbuilt in the sunset date
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 16th September 2026 seeking an interim injunction is declined
- 2.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
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 ELRC Procedure Rules (not expressly cited in the ruling)
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from terminating, replacing or altering the Claimant's employment terms, status and remuneration pending hearing and determination of the claim
Claimant failed to establish a prima facie case with probability of success and failed to demonstrate irreparable injury not compensable by damages
Costs
Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
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.
The general principle in law is that a fixed term contract of service does not carry any expectation for its renewal.
Reasons, beyond effluxion of time, are not necessary in termination of fixed-term contracts, unless there is a clause in the contract, calling for additional justification for the termination.
As such, the application is declined. Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated 29th September 2026 but Cause number is E1085 of 2026 and contract notice dated 31st August 2026 - dates appear internally consistent but the cause year 2026 with September 2026 judgment is unusually compressed
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tom Ongondi Omollo v International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No E1085 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2652/eng@2026-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.