Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMemorandum of Claim filed 12th August 2016 (ELRC, Nairobi)· [2020] KEELRC 238 (KLR)

Rose Wangari Mwangi v Mount Kenya University [2020] KEELRC 238 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
13 November 2020
4,168 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled both employer and employee caused a maternity leave pay dispute, so the employee won only unpaid salary and gratuity, not dismissal compensation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by Mount Kenya University at its Nairobi Campus on a renewable two-year contract, alleged constructive dismissal after she was not paid salary from December 2015 to March 2016 following her return from sick leave and maternity leave. She sought three months' salary (Kshs.54,000), gratuity of Kshs.18,720, twelve months' salary as compensation for constructive dismissal, one month's notice pay, interest and costs. The Respondent contended she absconded duty after the revised reporting date of 30th November 2015, that the contract was for services payable in arrears, and that she dismissed herself. The claim was disposed of by written submissions by consent. The court framed three issues: absconding, constructive dismissal and entitlement to reliefs. It found the Claimant absconded duty from about 1st December 2015 when her 90 days' maternity leave lapsed, since extension of maternity leave under section 29 of the Employment Act requires mutual agreement or a medical certificate, neither of which she obtained. Applying the contractual test from Coca Cola v Maria Kagai Ligaga, the court held the Respondent's stopping of her salary was justified, but faulted the Respondent for unilaterally changing her maternity leave commencement date without notifying her and for allowing her back to work without reinstating her salary; the impasse was contributed to by both parties. Constructive dismissal was therefore not proved. The court awarded salary for the period actually worked (Kshs.54,000) and unpaid gratuity for the completed contract ending 1st May 2015 (Kshs.18,720), totaling Kshs.72,720, but dismissed the claims for twelve months' compensation and notice pay. The Claimant received costs and interest at court rates from the date of judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant absconded duty

Holding

The court found the Claimant absconded duty from about 1st December 2015 when her 90 days' maternity leave lapsed, as she neither sought her employer's consent nor produced a medical certificate for the extended absence

Reasoning

The Claimant's approved maternity leave was to run from 19th October 2015 to 18th January 2016, but the Respondent unilaterally reviewed its commencement to 29th August 2015 with a reporting date of 30th November 2015 without notifying her. However, the law permits extension of maternity leave only by mutual agreement or production of a medical certificate. The Claimant produced no sick leave application or medical certificate until February 2016, and then only an undated letter. Internal memos showed she did not attend work or answer calls. Her failure to explain or obtain authority for her absence between 1st and 14th December 2015 justified the stopping of her salary.

p. 5
02

Whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed

Holding

The claim failed; the state of affairs leading to the Claimant leaving service was contributed to by both parties, and the stopping of her salary was justified given her unexplained absence

Reasoning

Applying the contractual test in Coca Cola v Maria Kagai Ligaga, the employee must show the employer's conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach. Here the Respondent stopped the salary because the Claimant failed to resume duty when its records showed her leave had lapsed. Although the Respondent was at fault in not notifying the Claimant of the changed maternity commencement and reporting dates, and allowed her back to work without reinstating her salary, the Claimant also failed to seek clarification or justify her absence. Both parties contributed to the impasse, so the employer's conduct did not amount to constructive dismissal.

p. 6
03

Whether the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought

Holding

The Claimant was awarded salary for the period actually worked (14th December 2015 to 15th March 2016) and gratuity for the completed contract ending 1st May 2015, but was denied compensation and notice pay

Reasoning

Having worked from 14th December 2015, the Claimant earned salary for that period, awarded at Kshs.54,000/-. The Respondent did not prove that gratuity was paid for the contract that ended on 1st May 2015, so Kshs.18,720/- was awarded as prayed. Because constructive dismissal was not proved, the claims for 12 months' compensation under section 49(4) of the Employment Act and one month's salary in lieu of notice were dismissed.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Constructive dismissal in Kenya is tested by the contractual approach: the employer's conduct must constitute a repudiatory breach of the contract of employment
  • Extension of maternity leave under section 29 of the Employment Act can only be on mutual agreement with the employer or upon production of a medical certificate

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the claimant against the respondent in the total sum of Kshs.72,720/=, comprising Kshs.54,000/- salary for the period worked between 14th December 2015 and 15th March 2016 and Kshs.18,720/- gratuity
  2. 2.The claims for 12 months' salary as compensation for unfair constructive dismissal and one month's salary in lieu of notice dismissed
  3. 3.The Claimant awarded costs of the suit
  4. 4.Interest to accrue at court rates from the date of judgment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 41(1)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Employment ActSection 29
  • Employment ActSection 30
  • Employment ActSection 49(4)
  • Employment ActSection 28
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Section 1B

Cases cited (7)

  • Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
    [1978] ICR 222
  • Coca Cola East & Central Africa Limited v Maria Kagai Ligaga
    [2015] eKLR
  • Ahmed Aden Hire v Natif Jama & another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Banking, Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya) v Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd
    [2014] eKLR
  • Nathan Ogada Atiagaga v David Engineering Limited
    [2015] eKLR
  • Lear Shighadi Sinoya v Avtech Systems Limited
    [2017] eKLR
  • Ol Pejeta Ranching Limited v David Wanjau Muhoro
    [2017] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (first-instance employment claim)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rose Wangari Mwangi v Mount Kenya University [2020] KEELRC 238 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Memorandum of Claim filed 12th August 2016 (ELRC, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/238/eng@2020-11-13

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