Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition dated 16th June 2022 (ELRC)· [2023] KEELRC 2801 (KLR)

Songole v Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Company (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E103 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 2801 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 November 2023
3,335 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that a fixed-term contract simply ends on its expiry date, and employers can revise HR policies without consulting every employee.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, formerly Director of Internal Audit & Risk Management at Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Company Limited, petitioned the ELRC claiming that the Respondent unlawfully and discriminatively imposed term limits on his employment. Hired in 2009 on a 3-year renewable contract, he signed a 5-year agreement on 13th February 2013, renewed in 2017 for a stated final 5-year term expiring 30th June 2022. He contended that the revised HR Manual introduced term limits without his consent, violating his contractual expectations and Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution and fair labour practices. The Respondent, through Monica Tuli's affidavit, countered that the Petitioner was always on fixed-term contracts; the 2012 revision of the HR Manual was carried out with the participation of senior staff including the Petitioner; the 2017 renewal letter expressly stated it was a final term; and no legitimate expectation of indefinite renewal arose. The court framed three issues: violation of fair labour practices, legitimate expectation, and entitlement to reliefs. Applying John Muogi Omare and Enid Nkirote Mukire, it held an employer may revise HR policies without consulting all employees, and a fixed-term contract expires by effluxion of time without notice. Relying on Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, it found no express, clear and unambiguous promise of renewal beyond the final term. The court declined to rewrite the contract and dismissed the petition, with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether unilateral revision of the HR manual violated the Petitioner's right to fair labour practices

Holding

No violation; the employer may revise its human resource policies without consulting all employees, and the Petitioner accepted and worked under the revised fixed 5-year term

Reasoning

The Petitioner signed an employment agreement on 13th February 2013 providing a 5-year fixed term and accepted its renewal on the same basis in 2017. The court held an employer need not consult all employees when amending its HR policy manual, and the Petitioner only objected in 2021 when the final term was about to expire.

p. 5
02

Whether the Respondent created a legitimate expectation of renewal beyond the final term

Holding

No legitimate expectation arose; the 2017 renewal letter expressly stated the term was final

Reasoning

Applying the doctrine as articulated in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, the court found no express, clear and unambiguous promise of renewal beyond five years. The 2017 renewal letter marked the term as 'final', defeating any claim of legitimate expectation.

p. 6
03

Whether the Petitioner was discriminated against by introduction of term limits

Holding

No discrimination; the revision served the company prudently and applied to Functional Directors as a category

Reasoning

The court was persuaded the Respondent did not discriminate against the Petitioner and was entitled to revise employee contract terms where prudent. The Petitioner, a senior staff member who participated in or was aware of the HR manual review, never objected until 2021.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A court will very sparingly interfere in the employer's entitlement to perform human resource functions
  • An employee on a fixed-term contract needs no notice of termination as the contract terminates by expiry of its term
  • Reliance on legitimate expectation requires an express, clear and unambiguous promise
  • Where parties have a contract, the court enforces it rather than rewriting it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party will meet their costs of the application and of the petition

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 41, 45, 47, 50, 159(2)(d), 48
  • Employment Act
  • Fair Administrative Action Act
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B

Cases cited (8)

  • Geofirey Mworia V Water Resources Management Authority
    [2015] eKLR
  • Margaret A Ochieng V National Water Conservation & Pipeline Corporation
    [2014] eKLR
  • John Muogi Omare vs Kenya National Commission for UNESCO
    (2020) eKLR
  • Enid Nkirote Mukire vs Kenya Year Book Editorial Board
    Petition E 029 of 2021
  • Pharmaceutical Manufacturing (k) Co Ltd & 3 Others vs Commissioner General of Kenya Revenue Authority & 2 Others
    (2017) eKLR
  • Keroche Industries Ltd vs Commissioner General of Kenya Revenue Authority & Others
    (2007) eKLR 240
  • Communication Commission of Kenya & 5 Others vs Royal Media Services & 5 Others
    S.C. Petition Nos 14, 14A, 14B and 14C of 2014
  • Alex Wainaina vs Kenya Airways Ltd
    ELRC Cause No 430 of 2011
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over employment and labour rights, including alleged violations of Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Songole v Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Company (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E103 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 2801 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Petition dated 16th June 2022 (ELRC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2801/eng@2023-11-03

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