Douglas Omunyin Otungu v Board of Trustees, Redeemed Christian Church of God [2022] KEELRC 820 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found a gardener resigned voluntarily rather than being constructively dismissed, but still awarded him service pay because his employer never remitted NSSF contributions.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed
No. The Claimant resigned voluntarily by letter dated 19th October 2015, gave no reasons for resignation, and the alleged grievances (guard duties, isolation incident) did not amount to a repudiatory breach; he also acquiesced in the changed duties.
The court applied the contractual test from Coca Cola v Ligaga and Western Excavating v Sharp, requiring a repudiatory breach going to the root of the contract and a causal link. The Claimant's resignation letter gave no reasons; he admitted writing it; he never protested the additional guard duties for over one and a half years, amounting to acquiescence and estoppel; and the encounter with the Pastor's wife was an isolated incident insufficient to show inhumane treatment.
Whether the Claimant was summarily dismissed as pleaded
No. The claim of summary dismissal was not supported by any evidence and contradicted the admitted resignation letter.
The memorandum of claim alleged summary dismissal at the end of October 2015 with coercion to write a resignation letter, but the Claimant led no evidence of coercion, made no reference to termination in his testimony, and his written statement omitted the resignation letter entirely. Both of the Respondent's witnesses testified they tried to dissuade him from resigning.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs claimed
Only certificate of service and service pay; all reliefs founded on termination were declined.
Having found voluntary resignation rather than constructive dismissal, reliefs premised on termination were unsustainable. However, the Respondent admitted it never deducted or remitted NSSF, entitling the Claimant to service pay for the years worked, and the Respondent was ordered to issue a certificate of service within 30 days.
The Respondent's counter claim for one month's notice pay
Declined. It would be inequitable given the Claimant's continued service and handover after giving 11 days' notice.
Although the contract required one month's notice and only 11 days was given, the Claimant stayed on for over a week to allow the Respondent to secure a replacement, introduced the new employee to the tasks, and handed over. The Respondent never indicated the notice was insufficient. The court found it inequitable to award notice pay and dismissed the counter claim.
Legal principles established
#- Constructive dismissal is part of Kenyan employment law despite the Employment Act not expressly recognising it
- The contractual test applies: employer's conduct must constitute a repudiatory breach going to the root of the contract, with an objective assessment and a causal link to the resignation
- An employee who accepts, waives or acquiesces in the employer's conduct cannot later rely on it as grounds for constructive dismissal
- Service pay is payable where the employer failed to deduct or remit NSSF contributions
Court orders
#- 1.Declined the order that the Respondent's termination of the Claimant was unfair and wrongful
- 2.Declined the claim for Kshs.380,599.85
- 3.The Respondent to issue a Certificate of Service to the Claimant within 30 days of the judgment
- 4.The Respondent to pay the Claimant service pay for the duration served (no NSSF contributions were made)
- 5.Declined the Respondent's counter claim for one month's salary in lieu of notice
- 6.Each party shall bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (9)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Okaka v Tulsi Construction Ltd[2026] KEELRC 2758 (KLR)5 Oct 2026
- Maundu v Wine Company Limited (Cause E011 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2866 (KLR)[2024] KEELRC 2866 (KLR)14 Nov 2024
- Rweria v Robinson Investment Limited (Cause 199 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 1908 (KLR)[2024] KEELRC 1908 (KLR)25 Jul 2024
- Rweria v Robinson Investment Limited (Cause 199 of 2017) [2024] KEELRC 1908 (KLR)[2024] KEELRC 1908 (KLR)25 Jul 2024
- Waweru v Triple Edge Media Limited (Cause E835 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 569 (KLR)[2024] KEELRC 569 (KLR)14 Mar 2024
- Karithi v Karumo Technical Training Institute (Cause E020 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 218 (KLR)[2024] KEELRC 218 (KLR)9 Feb 2024
- Karithi v Karumo Technical Training Institute (Cause E020 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 218 (KLR)[2024] KEELRC 218 (KLR)9 Feb 2024
- Musonye v Minolta Limited (Cause 136 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 645 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 645 (KLR)9 Mar 2023
- Chege v Bata Shoe Company, Kenya Limited (Cause 1206 of 2017) [2022] KEELRC 1608 (KLR)[2022] KEELRC 1608 (KLR)25 Jul 2022
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Douglas Omunyin Otungu v Board of Trustees, Redeemed Christian Church of God [2022] KEELRC 820 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No 568 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/820/eng@2022-02-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.