Edwin Gichangi v Kenya Cultural Centre [2019] KEELRC 203 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a reinstatement order ends when a fixed-term contract expires, and found Dr Gichangi's alleged contract extension letter likely forged.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the reinstatement order could survive the expiry of the fixed-term contract it preserved
The reinstatement order did not rewrite the contract and logically lapsed with the contract on 31 August 2019; the Court so clarified and declined to set the order aside in its entirety, finding the Respondent's application otherwise without merit
The Court found that when it reinstated the claimant on 5 July 2019 it was preserving a contract pending hearing of the Cause, not varying its terms. Since the contract had a fixed expiry of 31 August 2019 and the Cause could not be concluded before then, the reinstatement order logically could not outlive the contract. The Court issued a clarification to that effect rather than a wholesale review or setting aside.
Whether the claimant's contract had been extended by the letter of 2 April 2018
The letter did not conform to a contract extension or renewal document; the Court found a strong probability it was a forgery, noting the claimant's own pleadings and emails pointed to expiry on 31 August 2019
The Court examined the letter of 2 April 2018, which was referenced 'To Whom It May Concern', and considered it suspect for a senior executive position. The claimant's Statement of Claim described a 3-year contract from 31 August 2016 expiring 31 August 2019, and he never pleaded or explained the alleged extension. Handing-over emails in August 2019 also suggested he knew the contract was ending. Police investigations into the forgery were pending.
Whether the claimant was entitled to accrued salaries of Kshs 3,713,100
Yes, up to 31 August 2019; the Respondent did not deny the dues but contended payment awaited handing over, and the Court found the claimant had handed over
The Respondent did not dispute that the accrued salaries and dues were owed; it argued payment was contingent on handing over. The claimant filed communications and records demonstrating he had handed over and had directed the Respondent to some assets, including vehicles under service. The Court was satisfied he had handed over and directed that he be cleared and paid his accrued salaries and dues up to 31 August 2019.
Legal principles established
#- A reinstatement order anchored on a fixed-term contract cannot survive beyond the expiry date of that contract; the Court does not rewrite the parties' contract when reinstating an employee pending determination of a Cause
- An employee who has handed over and is owed accrued salaries and dues under a subsisting reinstatement order is entitled to be cleared and paid those dues
Court orders
#- 1.Clarification that the reinstatement order could not logically survive beyond 31 August 2019 when the fixed-term contract expired; save for that clarification, the Respondent's application dated 19 July 2019 was found without merit and dismissed
- 2.The claimant's application dated 28 August 2019 was found devoid of merit save for the finding that he had handed over and was entitled to accrued salaries and dues up to 31 August 2019
- 3.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the employment Cause (Cause No. 998 of 2018); no specific constitutional/statutory provision invoked in the ruling
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Edwin Gichangi v Kenya Cultural Centre [2019] KEELRC 203 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No. 998 of 2018 (Ruling No. 4). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/203/eng@2019-12-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.