Joseph Muriungi Rukioya v Methodist Church of Kenya [2021] KEELRC 896 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether withholding of salary constituted an unfair labour practice
Yes. Withholding salary for about 7-8 months without justifiable cause breached the employment contract and Section 17(1) of the Employment Act, and constituted an unfair labour practice contrary to Article 41(1) of the Constitution.
The claimant's salary was payable by the respondent under the letter of appointment. The transfer letter to Marimati Rural Training Centre did not alter the contractual terms or transfer the salary obligation to the centre. The respondent breached both the contract and the mandatory statutory duty under Section 17(1) of the Employment Act. The withholding exposed the claimant to pecuniary embarrassment and amounted to an unfair labour practice under Article 41(1).
Whether the termination was unlawful and unfair
Yes. The reason advanced (that the centre could no longer afford his salary) was neither valid nor fair as the claimant remained the respondent's employee, and fair procedure was not followed.
Under Sections 43(1) and 45(2) of the Employment Act and the respondent's own HRM Manual, the employer had to prove a valid, fair reason and fair procedure. Inability of the centre to pay was not a valid reason since the employment relationship subsisted with the respondent. Only 7 days' notice was given against a contractual 3 months' notice, and no hearing or explanation of reasons was accorded as required by Section 41(1).
Entitlement to reliefs
Claimant awarded 3 months' salary in lieu of notice, 9 months' gross salary as compensation for unfair termination, unpaid salary for 7 months 4 days, leave allowance for 2015 and accrued leave days; provident fund, 2014 leave allowance and loan penalties refused.
The court awarded the pleaded heads only to the extent supported by evidence and law: notice pay per the contract; 9 months' compensation considering the no-fault termination and unfair labour practice; unpaid salary adjusted to 7 months 4 days since service ended on 4th August; and prorated leave. Provident fund contributions had been reimbursed; no evidence supported the 2014 leave allowance or loan penalties.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must pay the entire amount of wages earned by or payable to an employee for work done, and failure to do so breaches both the contract and a mandatory statutory provision
- Transfer of an employee does not extinguish the employment relationship with the original employer nor diminish accruing rights, including the right to remuneration
- An employer bears the burden of proving a valid and fair reason for termination and fair procedure, failing which termination is unfair
- Inability to pay salary is not a valid or fair reason for termination where the employment relationship subsists with the original employer
- Beyond notice, an employer must explain reasons for termination in the presence of another employee or union official and consider the employee's representations before terminating
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the claimant against the respondent in the total sum of Kshs 3,340,085.00
- 2.3 months' gross salary in lieu of notice - Kshs 494,100.00
- 3.Compensation equivalent to 9 months' gross salary - Kshs 1,482,300.00
- 4.Unpaid salary for 7 months 4 days - Kshs 1,174,860.00
- 5.Leave allowance for 2015 - Kshs 37,850.00
- 6.Accrued leave days for 2014 and 2015 (27.5 days) - Kshs 150,975.00
- 7.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 8.Award subject to statutory deductions
- 9.Respondent to bear the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (implied; claim filed under the Employment Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mutungi v Kamwathi (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1435 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 473 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 473 (KLR)9 Feb 2023
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joseph Muriungi Rukioya v Methodist Church of Kenya [2021] KEELRC 896 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No 715 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/896/eng@2021-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.