Odhiambo v University of Nairobi Enterprises and Services Limited (Cause E497 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 994 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a former employee deserved his full gratuity and dues, but his unfair termination claim failed because his fixed-term contract simply expired.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Legitimate expectation of renewal of a fixed-term contract
The Claimant had an expectation of renewal but was not entitled to automatic renewal; non-renewal did not amount to unfair termination
The Claimant relied on paragraph 4.8(a) of the 2016 HR Manual and case law on legitimate expectation. The court accepted he had an expectation but held he was not entitled to automatic renewal. The Respondent's right to reorganize its business prevailed, so the non-renewal did not constitute unfair or unlawful termination.
Applicable HR Manual (2016 vs 2018)
The 2018 HR Policy & Procedure Manual did not apply to the Claimant; the 2016 HR Manual governed
The 2018 Manual was not brought to the attention of the Claimant or signed by employees, and the Respondent filed only extracts. A manual hidden from employees cannot override the one signed and made known to them. Therefore the gratuity and other terms in the 2016 Manual remained operative.
Terminal dues and clearance
The Claimant was entitled to payment of terminal dues including gratuity notwithstanding the disputed clearance
The court found the clearance form incomplete only because the MD, who was biased against the Claimant over his whistleblowing, refused to sign. The Respondent's suspension of dues processing was an attempt to penalize the Claimant. Terminal dues including gratuity per the 2016 Manual were payable.
The Counterclaim for Kshs. 4,500,000/-
The Counterclaim was rejected; the alleged loss was traceable to the whistleblowing incident against the MD and the Respondent failed to prove it against the Claimant
The court observed the claim was 'spurious' and that the loss arose from a whistleblowing incident concerning the MD's office. The Respondent should have looked to its management for recovery rather than imposing it on the Claimant. No breakdown or proof of loss attributable to the Claimant was adduced.
Legal principles established
#- A human resource manual not brought to the attention of employees cannot override the manual that was brought to their attention and signed by them, and cannot be used to backtrack on contractual obligations
- An employer cannot rely on an incomplete clearance form where the failure to sign is attributable to its own biased officer; failure to complete clearance by the employer is not a basis to deny an employee his dues
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent to pay the Claimant his terminal dues including gratuity as per his contract of employment since the 2018 HR procedures manual does not apply to him
- 2.Tabulation of dues to be made and a report made to Court within 14 days, after which the final figures will be entered in the judgment, since the Respondent has to calculate the gratuity due to complete and finalize the termination
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (claim filed by Memorandum of Claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#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, "Odhiambo v University of Nairobi Enterprises and Services Limited (Cause E497 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 994 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/994/eng@2023-04-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.