Muchiri v Laikipia University (Cause 058 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 2179 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employer cannot cut an employee's pay without consulting them first, especially after promising to keep employment terms unchanged.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the unilateral reduction of the claimant's remuneration was unfair and unlawful
The reduction was wrongful, unfair and unlawful; the assurance that all terms of employment remained the same created a legitimate expectation and the employer was estopped from unilaterally varying the remuneration.
The claimant was redeployed on an express written undertaking that all other terms of employment remained the same, and the respondent honoured that undertaking for over two years. No audit report or board minutes were availed to substantiate the claim of erroneous payment. The claimant was neither consulted nor heard before the reduction, contrary to article 41 (fair labour practices) and article 47 (fair administrative action) of the Constitution and sections 10 and 13 of the Employment Act. The ingredients of legitimate expectation set out by the Supreme Court were satisfied.
Whether the respondent is entitled to recover Kshs 2,645,000 paid to the claimant between March 2019 and February 2021
The counterclaim fails and is dismissed with costs.
Having found that the payments were made pursuant to an express promise and undertaking that all terms of employment would remain the same upon redeployment, and that the alleged audit report and board minutes authorising discontinuance and recovery were never produced, the court concluded the counterclaim had no merits. The payments were not irregular; they were the agreed remuneration the respondent had undertaken and continued to pay for over two years.
Whether the claimant is entitled to damages for unfair labour practices
Declarations and reinstatement of the deducted sums suffice; general damages are declined.
Although the claimant was subjected to unfair labour practices, the ordinary damage in such cases is the remuneration lost. The court's interim orders had already restored the deducted sums and the respondent complied fully by paying all arrears and continuing payment. The court therefore declined to award further damages, choosing to spare the taxpayer the cost of the wrongful actions of individual officers of the respondent.
Legal principles established
#- Remuneration includes wages, salary, allowances and any other monetary compensation due to an employee, and an employer cannot unilaterally vary it without consulting, informing and hearing the employee.
- An express, clear and unambiguous promise by an employer that terms of employment remain the same creates a legitimate expectation that the employer is estopped from unilaterally retracting.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the unilateral reduction of the claimant's remuneration in February 2021 was wrongful, unfair, and unlawful and amounted to unfair labour practice.
- 2.An order compelling the respondent to reinstate with effect from March 1, 2021 the sum of Kshs 115,000/= per month wrongfully deducted from the claimant's remuneration.
- 3.An order restraining the respondent from unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment of the claimant including her remuneration, the same to be retained as when she held the position of finance officer, subject to annual increments and other improvements.
- 4.Costs of the cause and of the dismissed counterclaim awarded to the claimant.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and unfair labour practice claims (article 41 of the Constitution; Employment Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muchiri v Laikipia University (Cause 058 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 2179 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Statement of claim dated October 21, 2021 (Cause filed October 22, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2179/eng@2023-09-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.