Benard Barasa Sunguti v Nairobi County Chief Officer for Urban Planning, Nairobi County Chief Officers for ICT & Nairobi City County Government [2021] KEELRC 1977 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court protected an employee's workspace and access, but denied constructive dismissal damages because he was still being paid and had not resigned.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant's constructive dismissal claim could succeed
The claim for constructive dismissal failed because the employment relationship was intact and the Claimant continued to draw full salary and benefits
The court found that constructive dismissal requires that the employer's conduct forced the employee to resign. The Claimant admitted he had received no termination or warning letters, no disciplinary proceedings, and continued to receive his full salary from the 3rd Respondent. Although the 1st and 2nd Respondents' conduct of removing his workstation and denying him office access planted 'seeds' of constructive dismissal, no dismissal had occurred, so damages for constructive dismissal were not grantable.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to injunctions and facilities to perform his duties
The court granted permanent injunctions and ordered provision of an office, computer and a supervisory online account
The court held that the Claimant, as a serving employee, is entitled to a workspace on the employer's premises and cannot be treated as an ordinary visitor to City Hall. The Respondents' conduct in removing his furniture and computer, denying him access, and opening only an operational account (rather than the supervisory account appropriate to his position) was deprecated, warranting injunctive relief and positive orders to facilitate his duties.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who remains in employment and continues to draw salary cannot found a claim for constructive dismissal, though intolerable working conditions may plant its seeds
- An employee holding an office in the county government is entitled to an office and workspace on the employer's premises and is not to access the premises as any ordinary member of the public
Court orders
#- 1.Permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from removing the Claimant from his work station
- 2.Permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from denying the Claimant access to his office
- 3.Provision of an office and computer by the 1st and 2nd Respondents facilitated by the 3rd Respondent
- 4.Opening of a supervisory account by the 2nd Respondent under the operational online account portal of the 3rd Respondent
- 5.Costs of the suit capped at Kshs. 100,000/-
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction (claim for constructive dismissal and unfair labour practices against employer and county officers); no specific constitutional provision cited
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Benard Barasa Sunguti v Nairobi County Chief Officer for Urban Planning, Nairobi County Chief Officers for ICT & Nairobi City County Government [2021] KEELRC 1977 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No 108 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1977/eng@2021-03-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.