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 870 of 2012· [2019] KEELRC 2208 (KLR)

Fred Mbeche Meroka v Principal, Multimedia University College of Kenya [2019] KEELRC 2208 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 February 2019
RSRadido Stephen
1,383 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court upheld a university employee's suspension because his contract allowed it, and rejected his pay claim after finding his promotion letter was forged.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Fred Mbeche Meroka (Claimant) sued the Principal, Multimedia University College of Kenya (Respondent), complaining of repayment of remuneration wrongfully withheld and of a wrongful, vindictive, biased, unfair and unlawful suspension from employment. The Respondent denied the claim, asserting the Claimant was employed and paid as a Senior Administrative Assistant, not an Assistant Registrar, and that his suspension pending investigations into gross negligence was lawful. The Court condensed the dispute into three issues: the legality of the suspension, breach of contract over withheld remuneration, and appropriate remedies. On suspension, although the suspension letter did not state its legal authority, clause 6.3 of the Respondent's Terms of Service authorised suspension on half pay pending investigations for up to 90 days; the Court held the suspension had contractual authority and that a 10-day delay in communicating the lifting of the suspension caused no prejudice. On remuneration, the Claimant relied on a letter of 23 June 2010 appointing him Assistant Registrar; the Respondent demonstrated that the letterhead and postal address on that letter were not in use until 2011, evidence the Claimant did not challenge. The Court found a strong probability that the appointment letter was a forgery and held there was no breach of contract on remuneration or designation. The Cause was dismissed with no order as to costs, the Court noting the Claimant remains an employee of the Respondent. Judgment delivered on 22 February 2019 in Nairobi by Radido Stephen, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suspension of the Claimant was lawful

Holding

Lawful, as it was founded on contractual authority under clause 6.3 of the Respondent's Terms of Service, and the 10-day delay in lifting it caused no prejudice

Reasoning

The suspension letter itself did not state its legal authority, but the Terms of Service authorised suspension on half pay pending investigations for up to 90 days. The decision lifting the suspension was communicated about 10 days after the 90-day window, but the Court found the Claimant suffered no prejudice, so the suspension remained lawful.

p. 2
02

Whether the Respondent was in breach of contract by withholding the Claimant's remuneration

Holding

No breach; the Claimant's letter of appointment as Assistant Registrar was a forgery

Reasoning

The Respondent showed the letterhead and postal address on the Claimant's purported 23 June 2010 appointment letter were not in use until 2011. The Claimant did not challenge this evidence. The Court found a strong probability of forgery on secondary evidence and rejected the claim for differential remuneration as Assistant Registrar.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The Employment Act, 2007 does not provide statutory protections against suspension pending investigations; such suspension is lawful if contractually authorised
  • Suspension from work without contractual authority would be unlawful and in breach of contract

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Cause is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Not specified

Cases cited (2)

  • McKenzie v Smith
    (1976) IRLR 345
  • McClory v Post Office
    (1993) IRLR 159
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in the judgment; cause filed under the Employment Act, 2007 framework (memorandum of claim/reply)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Fred Mbeche Meroka v Principal, Multimedia University College of Kenya [2019] KEELRC 2208 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No 870 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2208/eng@2019-02-22

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