Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Supreme CourtDismissedPetition E009 of 2025

Ngokonyo & 2 others v Telkom Kenya Limited

Supreme Court of Kenya
11 December 2025
10,219 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya LawDownload the judgment (PDF) Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~41 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Supreme Court rules 'permanent and pensionable' jobs can be terminated; no claim for future salaries.

What this practically means

#

Three former Telkom Kenya employees retired early in 1991 sued for lost salaries until age 55. The Supreme Court said no. 'Permanent and pensionable' does not guarantee a job until retirement. If you are dismissed, you can only claim notice pay and terminal benefits, not future earnings. You must also try to find another job to reduce your loss.

Executive summary

#
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by three former employees of Telkom Kenya (formerly Kenya Posts and Telecommunications Corporation) who were retired in the public interest in 1991, before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 55. The appellants challenged the Court of Appeal's decision which had set aside a High Court award of anticipatory salaries and allowances they would have earned until retirement. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment delivered by Chief Justice Koome, upheld the Court of Appeal's decision. The central issue was whether premature retirement in the public interest creates a legal basis for payment of anticipatory salaries and allowances. The Court held that it does not. It ruled that 'permanent and pensionable' employment does not guarantee tenure until retirement; such contracts remain terminable. The Court found no statutory foundation for anticipatory salary claims under either the repealed Employment Act (Cap 226) or the current Employment Act, 2007. The general measure of damages for wrongful dismissal is confined to notice pay, payment in lieu of notice, and contractual terminal benefits, not speculative future earnings. While the Court agreed with the High Court that the appellants' retirement was procedurally unlawful because they were denied a hearing as required by the respondent's own regulations, it held that the appellants had already received all they were entitled to: one month's salary in lieu of notice, gratuity, and pension. The Court emphasized the duty to mitigate loss and that awards must be proportionate, not amounting to unjust enrichment. The appeal was dismissed, the Court of Appeal judgment affirmed, and each party ordered to bear its own costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether premature retirement of public officers in the public interest creates a legal or contractual basis for the payment of anticipatory salaries and allowances.
  2. 2.What reliefs should issue?

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether premature retirement in the public interest creates a legal or contractual basis for payment of anticipatory salaries and allowances.

Holding

No. There is no statutory or contractual basis for such claims under the repealed or current Employment Act. The measure of damages is limited to notice pay, accrued benefits, and pension.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed the repealed Employment Act, Cap 226, and found no provision for anticipatory remuneration. It distinguished between lawful termination (which entitles an employee only to contractual notice and terminal dues) and unlawful termination (which may attract damages, but not speculative future earnings). The court held that 'permanent and pensionable' employment does not guarantee tenure until retirement, as such contracts remain terminable. It further noted that the weight of Court of Appeal authority, including Kenya Ports Authority v Silas Obengele, rejects anticipatory salary claims. The court also emphasized the duty to mitigate loss and that awards must be proportionate, not amounting to unjust enrichment.

02

Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to award pension benefits.

Holding

The Supreme Court did not determine this issue on its merits, as it was outside the certified question of general public importance.

Reasoning

The court declined to address this ground, noting that the appeal was certified on a single issue: whether premature retirement in the public interest creates a basis for anticipatory salaries and allowances. The court stated that the appellants could not expand their appeal beyond the issues delineated for consideration, citing Muriithi v Janmohamed.

Legal principles established

#
  • 'Permanent and pensionable' employment does not guarantee tenure until retirement; contracts remain terminable.
  • No statutory basis exists for claiming anticipatory salaries or future earnings under Kenyan employment law.
  • Damages for wrongful dismissal are limited to notice pay, payment in lieu of notice, and contractual terminal benefits.
  • An employee has a duty to mitigate any loss arising from unlawful termination.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal dated 14th March, 2025 and filed on 18th March 2025 is hereby dismissed.
  2. 2.The judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 26th July 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 394 of 2017 is hereby confirmed.
  3. 3.Each party will bear their own costs of the appeal before this Court.
  4. 4.We hereby direct that the sum of Kshs 6,000/- deposited as security for costs upon lodging of this appeal be refunded to the depositor.

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

Martha Karambu Koome
M. K. KoomeCJ
Currently serving
majority

Wrote the judgment

Smokin Charles Wanjala
S. C. WanjalaSCJ
Currently serving
majority
Njoki Susanna Ndungu
Njoki NdunguSCJ
Currently serving
majority
Isaac Lenaola
I. LenaolaSCJ
Currently serving
majority
William Ouko
W. OukoSCJ
Currently serving
majority
On appeal from
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Civil Appeal No. 394 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010

Relief refused

#

Setting aside the Court of Appeal judgment and allowing the cross-appeal for anticipatory salaries, allowances, and pension benefits

The claim for anticipatory salaries and allowances lacks a statutory foundation under both the repealed and current Employment Act; the Court of Appeal correctly dismissed the suit.

Costs

Each party will bear their own costs of the appeal before this Court.

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 designation of employment as 'permanent and pensionable' does not guarantee tenure until retirement age. Such contracts remain terminable, subject to the law and terms of service.
p. 20 Nature of permanent and pensionable employment
Claims for anticipatory salaries or future salary earnings lack a statutory foundation under both the repealed Employment Act (Cap 226) and the current Employment Act, 2007.
p. 20 Anticipatory salaries not recoverable
The general measure of damages does not extend to salaries for the unexpired period to retirement age. Remedies are generally confined to notice pay, payment in lieu of notice, and contractual terminal benefits.
p. 20 Measure of damages for wrongful dismissal
The appeal dated 14th March, 2025 and filed on 18th March 2025 is hereby dismissed.
p. 23 Final order dismissing the appeal
Each party will bear their own costs of the appeal before this Court.
p. 23 Costs order

Key timeline

#
1991
Appellants prematurely retired in public interest before age 55.
Unknown
High Court awards anticipatory salaries and allowances.
2024-07-26
Court of Appeal sets aside High Court award.
2025-03-18
Appeal filed in Supreme Court.
2025
Supreme Court dismisses appeal, affirms Court of Appeal.

Practical implications

#
For lawyers

Limit damages claims to notice and benefits

Advise clients that anticipatory salary claims are not recoverable. Focus on notice pay, accrued benefits, and pension. Emphasize the duty to mitigate loss. Use this case to oppose speculative future earnings claims in wrongful dismissal suits.

For businesses

Review 'permanent' contract language

Understand that 'permanent and pensionable' does not guarantee lifetime employment. Ensure termination procedures comply with regulations, but know you are not liable for future salaries beyond notice and terminal benefits. This reduces financial risk in restructuring.

For individuals

Know your termination entitlements

If you are dismissed, you are entitled to notice pay and contractual benefits, not future salaries until retirement. You must actively seek new work to reduce your loss. Consult a lawyer to ensure you receive what you are legally owed.

Frequently asked questions

#
Can I claim future salaries if I am unfairly dismissed in Kenya?+

No. The Supreme Court ruled that you cannot claim salaries you would have earned until retirement. Damages are limited to notice pay, payment in lieu of notice, and contractual terminal benefits.

What does 'permanent and pensionable' mean in Kenya?+

It does not guarantee a job until retirement. The Supreme Court confirmed that such contracts can still be terminated according to the law and terms of service. You are not entitled to future earnings beyond notice and benefits.

What damages can I get for wrongful termination in Kenya?+

You can get notice pay, payment in lieu of notice, and any contractual terminal benefits like gratuity or pension. You cannot claim speculative future earnings. You must also try to find another job to reduce your loss.

Is premature retirement in public interest legal in Kenya?+

Yes, but it must follow proper procedures. In this case, the retirement was procedurally unlawful because employees were not heard. However, the remedy does not include future salaries; only notice pay and terminal benefits apply.

Later judgments citing this (3)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ngokonyo & 2 others v Telkom Kenya Limited", Case Analysis (2025). Petition E009 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2025/75/eng@2025-12-11

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.