Stephen Mureith Ndungu v Kenya Forestry Research Institute & another [2018] KEELRC 1108 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled KEFRI unlawfully discriminated against an employee by skipping his automatic promotion under its own scheme of service, awarding salary arrears of over Kshs.1.1 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the new schemes of service formed part of the claimant's contract of service
Yes - the schemes of service implemented on 1.6.2011 became binding contractual terms for all serving employees
The court found the schemes were a culmination of consultation between the respondent and her employees and received the parent Ministry's approval. They were therefore not mere guidelines but formed part of each employee's contract from the effective date, binding both employer and employees unless an employee voluntarily opted out. Clauses 1.2 and 1.9 required automatic conversion of all serving officers.
Whether failure to advance the claimant to Research Scientist II RF9 was discriminatory and unlawful
Yes - the conversion was automatic despite the claimant lacking a Masters degree; the respondent's unilateral failure was unlawful and discriminatory
Clause 1.5 provided that serving officers convert even without requisite qualifications, with the only obligation being to acquire qualifications for future advancement. The claimant proved he enrolled for a Masters in 2013 and attained it in February 2018. The Board's later addendum reinstating the RF8 entry grade had not received Ministry approval, and the court held the respondent had a duty, not an option, to implement the scheme to all serving officers.
Legal principles established
#- A scheme of service implemented by an employer constitutes binding contractual terms which the employer must apply to all serving officers on the effective date.
- Serving officers convert automatically to a new scheme of service whether or not they possess the minimum qualifications for the grade, per clauses 1.5 and 1.9.
- Unilateral suspension of the applicable scheme of service for one employee is unlawful and discriminatory.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the failure by the respondent to convert and advance the claimant to the post of Research Scientist II effective 1.6.2011 was discriminatory and infringed the claimant's labour rights
- 2.The respondent is directed to place the claimant in the post of Research Scientist II Job Grade KEFRI 9 effective 1.6.2011
- 3.The claimant is awarded his salary arrears for the position of Research Scientist II Job Group 9 retrospectively from 1.6.2011 less what he has been paid as Assistant Research Scientist Job Grade KEFRI 8
- 4.The respondent is directed to pay Kshs.1,175,704.00 salary arrears plus any further arrears accruing from that date less statutory deductions
- 5.The claimant to have costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over labour disputes (employment claim concerning schemes of service, discrimination and labour rights)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stephen Mureith Ndungu v Kenya Forestry Research Institute & another [2018] KEELRC 1108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No 2188 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1108/eng@2018-09-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.