Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 38 of 2018· [2018] KEELRC 895 (KLR)

Arthur Njuguna Karogi v National Government Constituencies Development Fund Board [2018] KEELRC 895 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
9 October 2018
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
1,723 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that letting a fixed-term contract lapse is not a dismissal, so the ex-CDF accountant got nothing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the respondent on a renewable contract as Fund Account Manager, sued claiming that his interdiction by letter dated 28th December 2015 and the non-renewal of his contract by letter dated 25th November 2016 were unlawful, malicious and unprocedural, contrary to the Constitution, the Employment Act and the Labour Relations Act, and that he was denied a fair hearing under Article 50. He sought a declaration that his dismissal was null and void, reinstatement without loss of benefits, loss of remuneration from January 2016, gratuity at 31% of basic salary, costs and interest. The respondent denied the claim, asserting that an internal audit of the Molo Constituency CDF Fund revealed misappropriation of Kshs.40,598,113.60 in public funds paid for projects never undertaken during the claimant's tenure. It pleaded that the claimant was issued a notice to show cause, made written submissions, and appeared before a disciplinary committee, and that his contract expired during the disciplinary process, with the matter also referred to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission. The claimant's case was heard ex-parte on 20th July 2018, the respondent being absent despite service. Framing three issues (termination, entitlement to relief, and costs), the court agreed with the respondent: there was no termination of employment, only interdiction and lapse of the contract, and the claimant, tainted by unresolved fraud involving public funds, did not come to equity with clean hands. The claim was dismissed with costs to the respondent on 9th October 2018.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the interdiction and non-renewal of the claimant's contract constituted termination of employment

Holding

There was no termination; the employment relationship ended by lapse of the contract, communicated by letter dated 25th November 2016

Reasoning

The court found the claimant was employed as Fund Account Manager and implicated in fraud of Kshs.40,598,113.60 revealed by an internal audit. He underwent disciplinary proceedings, and his contract expired during the process; the expiry, communicated by letter of 25th November 2016, was the basis of cessation of employment. Interdiction and non-renewal of a lapsed contract fall outside the concept of termination as pleaded.

p. 3
02

Whether the claimant was entitled to the relief sought (reinstatement, remuneration, gratuity)

Holding

No; the finding of no termination disentitled the claimant to all relief

Reasoning

The court reasoned that reinstatement presupposes a subsisting contract and a termination; neither existed. The respondent had submitted there was no existing contract and that reinstatement would jeopardise pending investigations. Additionally, the claimant failed the clean-hands maxim due to unresolved questions of fraud involving public funds.

p. 3
03

Costs of the claim

Holding

Costs awarded to the respondent as the successful party

Reasoning

Having dismissed the claim after hearing it ex-parte despite service, the court exercised its usual discretion to award costs to the successful respondent.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Non-renewal of a lapsed fixed-term contract is not termination of employment for purposes of an unfair termination claim
  • A claimant implicated in fraud involving public funds cannot invoke the equity maxim of coming to court with clean hands

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed with costs to the respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 and the Labour Relations Act (claim for unfair termination of employment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Arthur Njuguna Karogi v National Government Constituencies Development Fund Board [2018] KEELRC 895 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 38 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/895/eng@2018-10-09

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