Bernard E.N. Gachuri v Jamii Bora Bank Limited [2020] KEELRC 606 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer cannot refuse an employee's resignation; once delivered, it takes effect, and blocking it can cost millions in damages.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant resigned from the Respondent's employment
The Court found the Claimant validly resigned by letter dated 3/8/2015 which was stamped received, and the Respondent's own submissions acknowledged the resignation
The resignation letter dated 3/8/2015 was received and stamped by the Respondent. The Respondent's letter of 4/8/2015 declining to accept it merely confirmed receipt. In its submissions the Respondent itself acknowledged that the Claimant had resigned, reneging on its earlier position of non-acceptance. The Court held that delivery of the resignation letter effected the resignation.
Whether an employer may reject a resignation and subject the employee to disciplinary proceedings
No. The employer had no right to reject the resignation; doing so would amount to servitude under Article 30 of the Constitution
The Court answered the question with an emphatic no, holding that a party to an employment contract is free to terminate it for valid reasons. Insisting that a resignation does not take effect unless accepted would subject the employee to servitude and forced labour prohibited by Article 30 of the Constitution. The Court followed prior ELRC decisions including Edwin Kipchumba v NBK and Kennedy Obala v KPA.
Whether the Respondent acted with malice in writing to the Claimant's new employer
Yes. Writing to DTB Bank declining the resignation and threatening disciplinary action, despite the Claimant having ceased employment, smacked of malice
The Respondent wrote to DTB Bank, the Claimant's prospective employer, stating it had declined the resignation and instituted disciplinary action. The Court found this act, together with the purported disciplinary process and the subsequent termination letter directed at a person who had already ceased to be an employee, demonstrated an employer unwilling to let go and willing to punish the Claimant, amounting to malice warranting general damages.
Whether the Respondent's termination letter dated 8/9/2015 was valid
The termination letter was null and void since the Claimant had already resigned and ceased to be an employee
Having found the Claimant had validly resigned, the Respondent no longer had an employment relationship to terminate. The purported termination by letter dated 8/9/2015, treating the resignation as termination, was therefore a nullity. The Court found the Respondent acted irresponsibly in issuing it.
What remedies the Claimant is entitled to
The Claimant was awarded Kshs. 2 million in general damages for the malicious smear, with costs; terminal dues were not awarded as they were not pleaded
Since the termination was null and void rather than an unfair termination, the 12 months' compensation claim failed. The only remedy available was terminal dues, which were not sought in the Memorandum of Claim. However, the Claimant was entitled to general damages for the malice displayed by the Respondent in attempting to smear his name with his new employer, assessed at Kshs. 2 million.
Legal principles established
#- An employer cannot reject or decline to accept an employee's resignation; acceptance is not required for resignation to take effect
- Rejection of a resignation amounts to holding the employee in servitude, contrary to Article 30 of the Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Respondent's purported termination letter dated 8/9/2015 was null and void
- 2.General damages of Kshs. 2 million for the malice actuated by the Respondent against the Claimant
- 3.The Respondent to pay costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (unfair and wrongful termination claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Omusundi v Kitui Flour Mills Limited (Appeal E049 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2664 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2664 (KLR)2 Oct 2025applied
- Maingi v Bridge International Academy Limited (Civil Appeal 193 of 2019) [2023] KECA 1211 (KLR)[2023] KECA 1211 (KLR)6 Oct 2023
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bernard E.N. Gachuri v Jamii Bora Bank Limited [2020] KEELRC 606 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No. 2030 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/606/eng@2020-07-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.