Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No 568 of 2016· [2022] KEELRC 820 (KLR)

Douglas Omunyin Otungu v Board of Trustees, Redeemed Christian Church of God [2022] KEELRC 820 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 February 2022
4,572 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

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

#
The Claimant, employed on 6th March 2014 as a gardener/groundsman at the Respondent church's Karen residence on a monthly net salary of Kshs.10,500, claimed he was summarily dismissed at the end of October 2015 and coerced into writing a resignation letter, and sought notice pay, unpaid leave, unpaid public holidays, day-guard salary, damages for wrongful termination, a certificate of service, interest and costs. The Respondent denied the allegations, asserted the Claimant resigned voluntarily, and counterclaimed for one month's notice pay for the alleged insufficient 11-day notice. The court framed two issues: whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed, and entitlement to reliefs. Applying the contractual test from Coca Cola v Ligaga and Western Excavating v Sharp, the court held that the resignation letter dated 19th October 2015 gave no reasons, no evidence of coercion or summary dismissal was adduced, and the alleged extra guard duties were never protested for over one and a half years, amounting to acquiescence and estoppel. Constructive dismissal was therefore not proved. Reliefs founded on termination were declined, but the court ordered the Respondent to issue a certificate of service within 30 days and awarded service pay because the Respondent had not remitted NSSF contributions. The counter claim was declined as inequitable since the Claimant stayed on to hand over after notice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. Judgment delivered virtually at Nairobi on 14th February 2022 by Dr. Jacob Gakeri, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed

Holding

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.

Reasoning

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.

p. 6
02

Whether the Claimant was summarily dismissed as pleaded

Holding

No. The claim of summary dismissal was not supported by any evidence and contradicted the admitted resignation letter.

Reasoning

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.

p. 5
03

Whether the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs claimed

Holding

Only certificate of service and service pay; all reliefs founded on termination were declined.

Reasoning

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.

p. 6
04

The Respondent's counter claim for one month's notice pay

Holding

Declined. It would be inequitable given the Claimant's continued service and handover after giving 11 days' notice.

Reasoning

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.

p. 7

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. 1.Declined the order that the Respondent's termination of the Claimant was unfair and wrongful
  2. 2.Declined the claim for Kshs.380,599.85
  3. 3.The Respondent to issue a Certificate of Service to the Claimant within 30 days of the judgment
  4. 4.The Respondent to pay the Claimant service pay for the duration served (no NSSF contributions were made)
  5. 5.Declined the Respondent's counter claim for one month's salary in lieu of notice
  6. 6.Each party shall bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Evidence ActSection 107
  • Evidence ActSection 7
  • Employment Act
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1

Cases cited (12)

  • Samson Emuru v Ol Suswa Farm Ltd
    [2006] eKLR
  • Joseph Aleper & another v Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company Limited
    [2015] eKLR
  • Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
    [1978] ICR 221 / [1978] 2 WLR 344
  • Anthony Mkala Chitavi v Malindi Water & Sewerage Company Ltd
    [2013] eKLR
  • Emmanuel Mutisya Solomon v Agility Logistics
    Cause No. 1448 of 2011
  • Benuel Mariera v Awanad Enterprises Ltd
    [2014] eKLR
  • Coca Cola East & Central Africa Limited v Maria Kagai Ligaga
    [2015] eKLR
  • Rose Mwikali Nzuki v Food for the Hungry Kenya
    [2015] eKLR
  • Treadsetters Tyres Ltd v John Wekesa Wepukhulu
    [2010] eKLR
  • Leena Apparels (EPZ) Limited v Nyevu Juma Ndokolani
    [2018] eKLR
  • Joseph M. Kivilu v Kenya National Examination Council
    [2021] eKLR
  • Premier Construction Limited v Josephat Bwire Lukale & 5 others
    [2017] eKLR
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.

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.