Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2016] KEELRC 631 (KLR)

Charles Mungai Gakuo v Aromah Restaurant Ltd [2016] KEELRC 631 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 September 2016
999 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employee who quit without notice lost his entire claim because resigning in breach of contract disqualified him from suing his employer.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, hired by the respondent on 5th September 2013 as an assistant manager (though claiming to have acted as manager), sued claiming unpaid overtime for working both of two shifts he organised (6.15 a.m. to 10.00 p.m.), non-payment of Kshs.11,250 (or in the alternative more than the Kshs.1,000 paid) for use of his blender when the company's blender broke down, and unlawful salary deductions of Kshs.15,862 made in October and November 2013 to cover a cash shortage by the cashier. He alleged the respondent frustrated him through long hours and arbitrary deductions, forcing him to resign, and that his final dues of Kshs.13,098 were below what he expected. The respondent's witness, the owner, testified he was a supervisor who resigned without notice, that he accepted responsibility for the cash shortage justifying the deductions, that no blender agreement existed, and that overtime was admittedly unpaid but the shift system never operated. Two of the claimant's witnesses corroborated long working hours. The court held the employment relationship is based on confidence and trust; the claimant admitted taking responsibility for the shortage, and although he alleged frustration, the evidence did not clearly establish it at trial. Under the Employment Act, the monthly-paid contract was terminable by one month's notice on either side, so the claimant's immediate resignation without good reason breached his contract. A party in breach cannot benefit from his own breach. The claim was dismissed with costs. Judgment delivered at Nairobi on 9th September 2016 by Abuodha Jorum Nelson, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant's resignation was a constructive dismissal caused by the respondent's conduct

Holding

The claim was unmerited; the evidence of frustration leading to resignation was not established and the claimant's immediate resignation breached his contract.

Reasoning

The court held that although the claimant alleged frustration, the evidence did not clearly support it at trial. He admitted taking responsibility for the cash shortage, chose to resign but then worked on to allow recovery of the loss from his pay. Since the contract was terminable by one month's notice on either side, his immediate resignation without good reason was itself a breach of contract, and he could not benefit from his own breach.

p. 2
02

Notice period applicable to the employment contract

Holding

The contract was terminable by one month's notice on either side, by operation of the Employment Act where the contract is silent.

Reasoning

The Employment Act requires that where the contract makes no provision for termination, the notice period is reckoned as concurrent with the salary payment period. The claimant was paid monthly, so the contract was terminable by one month's notice. His immediate resignation was therefore in breach since no good reason warranted immediate resignation.

p. 2
03

Lawfulness of the salary deductions for the cash shortage

Holding

The deductions were not found to be unlawful; the claimant admitted taking responsibility for the shortage.

Reasoning

The claimant admitted in cross-examination that he took responsibility for the lost cash as a supervisor and accepted responsibility for the shortage, which is why the respondent made the deductions of approximately Kshs.15,000 for October and November. This undermined his claim of arbitrary deductions and frustration.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Employment relationships are founded on confidence and trust, the erosion of which justifies the relationship not continuing smoothly.
  • Where the contract of employment makes no provision for termination notice, termination is reckoned as concurrent with the salary payment period.
  • A party in breach of a contract cannot seek to benefit from that breach.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActNot specified (termination notice provision)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (implied; not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Charles Mungai Gakuo v Aromah Restaurant Ltd [2016] KEELRC 631 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/631/eng@2016-09-09

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