Peterson Guto Ondieki v Kisii University [2020] KEELRC 1895 (KLR)

The court noted that unfair termination claims are anchored on sections 35, 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007, requiring the employer to prove reasons for termination. The claimant's pleadings and evidence did not raise this element; he amended to constructive dismissal which changed the character of the claim and required different evidence, which was not led.

Relying on Coca Cola v Ligaga, the court restated that constructive dismissal requires proof of repudiatory breach, intolerable working conditions, and that resignation was justified. Pleading alone is insufficient; evidence of the employer's conduct is required. The claimant adduced none, so the constructive dismissal claim failed.

Applying the LSK v AG and Barclays Bank formulations, a discrimination claimant must demonstrate the differential treatment and the grounds for it. The claimant produced no comparative analysis of other employees' qualifications and terms; his averments were bare and unsupported by evidence, so no discriminatory practice was inferred.

The claimant did not explain how the Ksh.2.1 million was computed and did not address the issue in submissions. The respondent's Payment Guide and Payment Policy showed dues were payable upon application with duly filled claim forms; awarding as claimed would deny the respondent a fair chance to administratively process payment per the set policy.