Mwangi v Tangaza College (The Catholic University of Eastern Africa) (Cause E530 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 2503 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that being redeployed isn't termination, but punishing an employee without a hearing is an unfair labour practice—yet no compensation was awarded.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the redeployment of the Claimant amounted to termination and demotion
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the redeployment amounted to termination
It did not; the Claimant continued working for the Respondent on a new contract signed on 18th June 2020, so there was no severance of the employment relationship
The court adopted the Black's Law Dictionary definition of termination as a complete severance of the employer-employee relationship. The Claimant was still working for the Respondent, earning the same salary and allowances, and had signed a transitional contract and a full-time lecturer contract after reading them, which superseded the Dean of Students contract. There was therefore no termination.
Whether the redeployment amounted to demotion
Yes; the change in status and place of work, effected as a disciplinary measure without hearing the Claimant, amounted to demotion and an unfair labour practice under Article 41
Applying the ordinary meaning of demotion as a reduction in rank or status, the court found the Claimant's status and place of work changed even though benefits remained the same. Because the redeployment was a disciplinary measure under the University's policy manuals and the Claimant was not given a right to be heard, it was an unfair labour practice under Article 41 of the Constitution and a unilateral variation of the contract.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought
No; the claim for unfair termination failed, and reinstatement was unavailable since the Claimant accepted the redeployment and had not sought it
Having found no termination, the claim for unfair termination and associated damages failed. The only available remedy for the demotion would have been reinstatement, but the Claimant had accepted and signed the redeployment contract, and reinstatement was not among the prayers. The claim was dismissed in its entirety.
Legal principles established
#- Termination of employment requires a complete severance of the employer-employee relationship; an employee who remains in employment under a new contract is not terminated
- Redeployment that changes an employee's status and place of work, done as a disciplinary measure without hearing the employee, amounts to demotion and an unfair labour practice under Article 41 of the Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.Claim dismissed as without merit
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment Act; Article 41 of the Constitution)
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination of employment was unfair and unlawful
Court found employment was never terminated; the Claimant remained in employment under a new contract
Damages of Kshs. 4,200,000 including notice pay, 12 months' compensation, remainder of contract and general damages
No termination was found; reinstatement was not sought and the Claimant had accepted and signed the redeployment contract
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Court therefore finds and holds that the Claimant's redeployment did not amount to termination but amounted to demotion and amounted to an unfair labour practice under article 41 of the Constitution.
In conclusion the Court finds and holds that the Claimant's employment was not terminated hence there was no unlawful and unfair termination.
The claim is therefore found without merit and is hereby dismissed.
I order that each party to bear their own costs
Issues in the judgment
#Numbered issues list contains garbled/duplicated text
Claimant's case pleaded termination on 3rd March 2020 via a 'Re-Deployment Letter' while also asserting no termination occurred; judgment treats the event as redeployment amounting to demotion but not termination
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.
- Muga v Sbc Kenya Limited (Cause 346 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1391 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1391 (KLR)9 May 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwangi v Tangaza College (The Catholic University of Eastern Africa) (Cause E530 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 2503 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2503/eng@2023-10-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.