Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNyeri ELRC Appeal No. E006 of 2023· [2024] KEELRC 1250 (KLR)

Trustees of Archdiocese of Nyeri John Pope Paul II Huruma Health Centre v Wandeto (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E006 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1250 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
13 May 2024
2,561 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that forcing an employee onto indefinite unpaid leave amounts to constructive dismissal, even if the employee signs a resignation letter.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri against a decision of the trial magistrate (Hon. Mararo, SPM), who had found that the respondent employee's resignation from the appellant health centre was not voluntary and constituted constructive dismissal, awarding her a global sum of Kes 457,216, a certificate of service, costs and interest. The respondent had been employed on a two-year fixed-term contract from July 1, 2019, but was placed on indefinite unpaid leave by a letter dated April 20, 2020 due to Covid-19 cash-flow problems. A month later she wrote a resignation letter citing the unpaid leave, and sued claiming the resignation was forced. On appeal, Makau J re-evaluated the evidence under the Selle v Associated Motor Boat Company principles and framed two issues: whether the resignation was voluntary or a constructive dismissal, and whether the award of damages should stand. The court upheld the finding of constructive dismissal, reasoning that the employer ought to have negotiated, declared redundancy or lawfully terminated the contract, and that withholding pay was a repudiatory breach leaving the employee no option but to quit. However, the court found the global award was lifted from the memorandum of claim without justification, an abdication of duty, and re-computed the award as Kes 262,809: one month's notice (Kes 29,201), six months' compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act (Kes 175,206), and May and June 2020 salary (Kes 58,402), subject to statutory deductions. The claim for accrued leave was set aside and each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the appeal, while the certificate of service, costs and interest awards of the trial court were left undisturbed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondent voluntarily resigned or was constructively dismissed

Holding

The resignation was not voluntary but forced by the employer's conduct of sending the employee on indefinite unpaid leave, amounting to constructive dismissal and unfair, unlawful termination

Reasoning

The employer placed the respondent on indefinite unpaid leave citing Covid-19 cash-flow problems. The court found the employer should have negotiated, declared redundancy or lawfully terminated. Instead it withheld pay and denied her freedom to seek alternative work, leaving her no option but to quit. Withholding pay was a repudiatory breach, satisfying both the unreasonable-conduct and contractual tests from the Coca Cola case.

p. 4
02

Whether the impugned award of damages should stand

Holding

The global award of Kes 457,216 was set aside and substituted with a broken-down award of Kes 262,809 covering notice, six months' compensation, and May and June 2020 salary

Reasoning

The trial court lifted the figure from the memorandum of claim without particularising or justifying it, which was an abdication of duty. On the evidence, the court awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice as pleaded (Kes 29,201), six months' compensation under section 49 considering five years of service, clean record and legitimate expectation (Kes 175,206), and unpaid salary for May and June 2020 (Kes 58,402), since no proof of receipt of the payslip and cheque was shown.

p. 5
03

Whether the employer proved payment of the May and June salary via payslip and cheque

Holding

The claim was not rebutted because the payslip was unsigned by the respondent and there was no evidence she acknowledged receipt of the cheque

Reasoning

The appellant produced a payslip and cheque for Kes 36,201 less statutory deductions, but there was no evidence the payment was given to the respondent. Since she denied receipt and the appellant failed to prove delivery, the claim for May and June salary was awarded in full.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer who cannot pay must negotiate with the employee, declare redundancy or lawfully terminate the contract; instead withholding pay indefinitely amounts to repudiatory breach and constructive dismissal
  • A court has a duty to break down and justify any award of damages rather than adopt a global figure from the pleadings

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the respondent's resignation was not voluntary and amounted to constructive dismissal by the appellant
  2. 2.Appellant to pay the respondent notice pay of Kes 29,201.00
  3. 3.Appellant to pay the respondent compensation of Kes 175,206.00 (six months' salary)
  4. 4.Appellant to pay the respondent May and June 2020 salary of Kes 58,402.00, totaling Kes 262,809.00
  5. 5.The award is subject to statutory deductions
  6. 6.Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal
  7. 7.The award of certificate of service, costs and interest by the trial court are not disturbed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 49(1)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) RulesRule 28(3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Coca Cola East & Central Africa Limited v Maria Kagai Lugaga
    (2015) eKLR
  • Susan Murila & another v Richard Kipkoech Langat & another
    (2019) eKLR
  • Maxwell Miyawa & 7 others v Judicial Service Commission
    (2017) eKLR
  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd
    (1968) EA 123
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court (ELRC at Nyeri)
null
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal from the trial magistrate's court in an employment claim, heard under the court's appellate mandate; delivered in accordance with Rule 28(3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules

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, "Trustees of Archdiocese of Nyeri John Pope Paul II Huruma Health Centre v Wandeto (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E006 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1250 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Nyeri ELRC Appeal No. E006 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1250/eng@2024-05-13

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