Kefah Rabah v Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology [2016] KEELRC 147 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan professor who quit his university job for a better one could not claim Shs.7.9 million because he proved neither forced exit nor unpaid dues.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed
The Claimant voluntarily resigned to take up employment at Kabarak University; constructive dismissal was not established
The court reviewed the Kenyan and comparative jurisprudence on constructive dismissal. The Claimant's own testimony was that he resigned for a better job opportunity. The refusal of leave of absence was not a breach of contract. His resignation letter did not refer to any frustration and in fact thanked the Respondent. None of the grounds cited were reasons for his leaving, and no evidence of intolerable working conditions was produced. The allegation of constructive dismissal failed.
Whether the Claimant proved the monetary claims (extra courses, CBA payment, salary, leave, severance)
None of the monetary claims were proved; the entire claim was dismissed
On extra courses, the Claimant admitted having no proof he taught the classes claimed, produced no attendance registers or memos seeking computation, and the courses were not approved by the Deputy Vice Chancellor. On the CBA claim he could not explain his computation. The September 2013 salary was shown to have been paid after deduction of liabilities. Severance and section 49 damages were inapplicable since there was no redundancy or unfair termination. The claim failed in its entirety.
Legal principles established
#- A resignation will be deemed constructive dismissal only where the employee is forced to leave against his will because of the employer's conduct breaching the implied term of trust and confidence; refusal to grant leave of absence and a resignation letter without any complaint of frustration do not establish constructive dismissal
- He who alleges must prove; the burden lies on the claimant to establish the facts underpinning each head of claim
Court orders
#- 1.The entire claim filed by the Claimant is dismissed with no orders for costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction over claims by an employee against his employer (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kefah Rabah v Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology [2016] KEELRC 147 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 6 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/147/eng@2016-12-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.