Kuira v Karanja & 2 others (Cause 79 of 2018) [2022] KEELRC 4158 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A headmaster unfairly dismissed in 1998 won Kshs 871,472 in unpaid dues, but Kenya's pre-2007 employment law limited what he could claim.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Applicable statutory regime
The claim, having been terminated in 1998 and initiated as HCCC No 43 of 1999, is governed by the repealed Employment Act cap 226
The court noted the claim was initially filed as High Court Civil Case No 43 of 1999, predating the Employment Act 2007. Since the 2007 Act cannot apply retrospectively, the claim must be resolved under the repealed cap 226 regime, which limited remedies to notice pay and unpaid dues.
Underpayment claim
The claimant proved entitlement to parity of salary with the 1st respondent per the board minutes and was awarded the difference between Kshs 40,000 and Kshs 33,260 from 1988 to January 1999
The minutes of March 8, 1988 resolved that the head teacher's pay would equal the manager's. The 1st respondent admitted earning Kshs 40,000 while the claimant earned Kshs 33,260 at termination. The court found the claimant was never paid the agreed parity and awarded the arrears as prayed.
Leave pay
Claim for leave allowance failed for lack of proof that leave was sought and denied
The claimant sought leave pay covering 1988 to 1999 but produced no evidence of applications for leave being refused. The respondents contended he enjoyed leave during school holidays and the salary was all-inclusive. Absent proof of denial, the claim was not made out.
Unpaid December 1998 salary and notice pay
Awarded one month's notice pay at Kshs 40,000 and unpaid December 1998 salary, which the respondents admitted was unpaid
The respondents admitted the December 1998 salary was unpaid because the claimant had not cleared with the school. Under the repealed Act, notice pay was the recognised remedy upon termination regardless of the validity of reasons, so one month's salary at the 1st respondent's rate was awarded.
Legal principles established
#- The Employment Act 2007 does not operate retrospectively; claims arising from terminations before its commencement are governed by the repealed Employment Act cap 226
- Under the repealed Employment Act, a contract of service was terminable without reason and the sole remedy was notice pay or wages earned under the contract
Court orders
#- 1.1 month salary in lieu of notice at Kshs 40,000
- 2.Unpaid salary for December 1998 at Kshs 40,000
- 3.Underpayments from 1988 to January 1999 as prayed, Kshs 791,472
- 4.Total award of Kshs 871,472 subject to statutory deductions
- 5.Respondents to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction under the repealed Employment Act cap 226 Laws of Kenya, the claim having originated in the High Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kuira v Karanja & 2 others (Cause 79 of 2018) [2022] KEELRC 4158 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Formerly High Court Civil Case No 43 of 1999 (Nairobi HCCC 169 of 2013 relates to shareholding). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/4158/eng@2022-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.