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. 178 of 2018· [2022] KEELRC 1050 (KLR)

Rachael Njambi Thuo v County Government of Nyandarua [2022] KEELRC 1050 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
20 January 2022
1,535 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan county government was ordered to pay Kshs.1 million for cutting an employee's house allowance without consulting her or giving written notice.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed by the County Government of Nyandarua on 9th September 2015 as Assistant Director Pre-Primary and Childcare, accepted an appointment letter dated 24th August 2015 stipulating a house allowance of Kshs.40,000. She contended her house allowance was unilaterally reduced to Kshs.13,600 (the court found the pay slips showed Kshs.15,200) without notice or consultation, breaching her contract and prompting her resignation from prior employment. The respondent defended the claim on the ground that the reduction was effected pursuant to Salaries and Remuneration Commission circulars dated 10th December 2014 and 11th August 2015, communicated by notice board, and that the respondent had no discretion. The claimant cited authorities on unilateral variation and fair labour practices; the respondent cited authority on courts not acting in vain. The court held that although the SRC circulars were in force at appointment and the respondent's initial payment at the higher rate was an error or omission, the respondent had to alter the emoluments in accordance with section 10(5) of the Employment Act, which requires consultation with the employee and written notification. The respondent's failure to respond to inquiries and to explain the reduction amounted to breach of contract. The court awarded the claimant damages of Kshs.1,000,000, directed the respondent to seek concurrence with the SRC to correct the mistake in altering the house allowance, and awarded costs to the claimant. The claim succeeded in substance but not all the specific reliefs sought were granted as framed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether reduction of the contractual house allowance breached the contract

Holding

Yes - the reduction from Kshs.40,000 to Kshs.15,200/13,600 without consultation or written notice breached section 10(5) of the Employment Act and the contract

Reasoning

The appointment letter dated 24th August 2015 stipulated house allowance of Kshs.40,000 which the claimant accepted. Though SRC circulars were in force at appointment, the respondent failed to apply them due to error, then reduced the allowance without consulting the claimant or notifying her in writing. Section 10(5) of the Employment Act requires consultation and written notice for any change to contract terms. The respondent's silence in response to inquiries compounded the breach.

p. 2
02

Whether the SRC directive absolved the respondent of liability

Holding

No - the respondent had a right to alter the emoluments to correct the error but had to follow the statutory process of consultation and written notification

Reasoning

The court accepted that SRC circulars of 10th December 2014 and 11th August 2015 directed the reduction and were in force at the claimant's appointment, and that the respondent's initial appointment at the higher rate was an error. However, this did not permit unilateral variation; the respondent was required to consult the employee and notify her of the change in writing, which it failed to do. The respondent was directed to seek concurrence with SRC to correct the mistake.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An employment contract may only be altered after consultation with the employee, with written notification of the change as required by section 10(5) of the Employment Act
  • Unilateral variation of contractual remuneration by an employer, even pursuant to an SRC directive, constitutes breach of contract

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Damages of Kshs.1,000,000 awarded to the claimant for breach of contract
  2. 2.Respondent directed to seek concurrence with the SRC to correct the mistake in altering the house allowance
  3. 3.Costs of the case awarded to the claimant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act 2007Section 10(5)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 42
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 230(4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kenya County Government Workers Union V Wajir County Government and Another
    [2020] eKLR
  • Maxwell Miyawa & 7 others V JSC
    [2017] eKLR (ELRC Petition No. 29 of 2016)
  • Kalya Soi Farmers Cooperative society V Paul Kiru & Another
    [2013] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment contracts (Employment Act 2007)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rachael Njambi Thuo v County Government of Nyandarua [2022] KEELRC 1050 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No. 178 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1050/eng@2022-01-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.