Arunda Oludhe v Bridge International Academies Foundation
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a teacher's dismissal unfair because his school never invited him to a disciplinary hearing or let him question his accusers.
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 court should exercise jurisdiction over a claim within the magistrate's court pecuniary jurisdiction
- 2.Whether the respondent had a valid and fair reason to summarily dismiss the claimant
- 3.Whether the respondent complied with the procedural fairness requirements of Section 41 of the Employment Act
- 4.Whether the claimant proved defamation, constitutional violations or unfair labour practices
- 5.Whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Date of commencement of employment
The claimant's employment commenced in 2013, not 2023 as the respondent pleaded
There was no contract exhibited to support either party's contention on the start date. The claimant produced a pay slip of August 2024 and a letter of 16/2/2017 confirming completion of probation, which made the respondent's averment of employment in 2023 unsustainable. The court adopted 2013 as the start date as submitted by the claimant.
Jurisdiction of the ELRC over a claim within the magistrate's court limit
The court proceeded to determine the claim despite conceding the Chief Magistrate's Court was the lawful forum
The respondent raised a preliminary objection that under Legal Notice No. 6024 of 2018 the claim, given the salary of Kshs 17,482, ought to be referred to the Chief Magistrate's Court. The court agreed the CMS court would have been the lawful court but invoked the claimant's pauper status and the ELRC's inherent jurisdiction to dispose of the cause in the interest of justice.
Procedural fairness under Section 41 of the Employment Act
The disciplinary procedure was flawed; no invitation letter to the hearing was served and the claimant was not given the chance to hear and cross-examine his accusers
The respondent produced Exhibit 8, a general records book dated 18/9/2024, but no letter inviting the claimant to the disciplinary hearing of 18/9/2024. There was no indication witnesses were called and heard, and no evidence the pupil was called as a witness. The claimant was therefore denied the opportunity to hear evidence from his accusers and cross-examine them, rendering the procedure non-compliant with Section 41.
Validity of the reason for termination
The reason for termination was not proved; the findings of culpability rested on non-existent evidence
Under Section 45(2) the employer must prove a valid and fair reason and a fair procedure. RW1 conceded he had no picture of the claimant administering corporal punishment, and the disciplinary minutes could not be accounted for by the respondent. With the procedure flawed and the reason unproved, the summary dismissal for alleged corporal punishment was unfair and unjustified.
Remedies for unfair termination
Notice pay of one month and 10 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination were awarded, taking into account long service and difficulty of re-employment
The court awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs 17,482) and 10 months' compensation (Kshs 174,820), citing the claimant's long service and his inability to secure another job given his age. The other heads of claim, including defamation and constitutional compensation, were not granted despite the broad prayers.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must serve a letter inviting the employee to a disciplinary hearing; a general records book without an invitation letter does not satisfy Section 41
- An employee must be given an opportunity to hear evidence from his accusers and cross-examine them before culpability is found
- Where procedure is flawed and the reason for termination is not proved, the termination is unfair under Section 45(2)
Court orders
#- 1.One month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 17,482
- 2.10 months' compensation for unfair termination of Kshs 174,820 (17,482 x 10)
- 3.Total award of Kshs 192,302 less statutory deductions
- 4.The claimant be issued with a certificate of service
- 5.The respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- The court invoked 'the inherent jurisdiction of the ELRC to handle all ELRC case' despite conceding the magistrate's court was the lawful forum under Legal Notice No. 6024 of 2018
Relief refused
#Declarations that the disciplinary action did not terminate the contract and that the dismissal record be struck off
Court found the termination unfair but did not grant the declaratory reliefs or order expungement of the record
Damages for defamation (Kshs 3,000,000 per instance)
Not addressed in the court's findings; no defamation award made
Compensation for violation of fair administrative action, dignity and unfair labour practices (Kshs 2,100,000+)
Constitutional and unfair labour practice claims not adjudicated upon in the final orders
Long service leave of Kshs 17,482
Claimant conceded he never applied for long service leave
Relocation subsidy of Kshs 9,000
Claimant conceded his transfer was within Nairobi County
Accumulated remuneration from September 2024 and Employee Child Benefit
Not granted; only notice pay and 10 months' compensation awarded
Aggravated damages of Kshs 100,000 and reimbursement of Kshs 18,000
Not addressed in the final orders
Costs
The respondent will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment
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.
However, given the pauper status of the claimant and given the inherent jurisdiction of the ELRC to handle all ELRC case, I will proceed and dispose of this cause in order to allow justice to prevail.
there is no any letter served upon the claimant inviting him to any disciplinary hearing on 18/9/2024. There is no indication that witnesses were even called and heard.
Given this scenario I find that the disciplinary procedure was flawed and the findings of culpability were based on none existent evidence.
Given the lack of procedural propriety, the existence of valid reason that would have led to termination were found non existent, I therefore find the termination of the claimant was unfair and unjustified.
(1) 1 months salary in lieu of notice = kshs 17,482/-. (2) Given the long service of claimant with the respondent, and his inability to get another job given his age, I award him 10 months compensation for unfair termination= 17482x10= kshs 174,820
(4) The respondent will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#Court concedes CMS was the lawful forum but retains jurisdiction on 'pauper status' and 'inherent jurisdiction' without legal basis
Court records two different gross pay figures and awards on the higher one without reconciling them
Numerous pleaded heads of claim (defamation, constitutional violations, expungement) are neither analysed nor expressly disposed of in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Arunda Oludhe v Bridge International Academies Foundation", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Cause No. E392 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2780/eng@2026-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.