Union of National Research Institutes Staff of Kenya (UNRISK) v Kenya Medical Research Insitute (Cause E866 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 1845 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that fixed-term contracts simply expire when they end, so KEMRI owed no severance or compensation to workers whose contracts were not renewed.
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 CBA herein was applicable
- 2.Whether the 11th and 12th Grievants were Respondent's employees
- 3.Whether the Grievants were unfairly and wrongfully terminated or their contracts expired Automatically
- 4.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the CBA registered as RCA No. 225 of 2014 remained applicable despite expiry
The CBA remained applicable notwithstanding expiry, as an expired CBA continues in force until a new one is negotiated, signed and registered
The CBA provided it would remain in force for four years from 1st July 2013 to 30th June 2017. Although the Grievants' Walter Reed contracts ran from March to September 2018, after expiry of the CBA, the court held that industry practice keeps an expired CBA in force until a successor agreement is negotiated, signed and registered. The CBA registered as RCA No. 225 of 2014 therefore remained applicable.
Whether the 11th and 12th Grievants were employees of the Respondent
They were not the Respondent's employees; no contracts were issued to them and their claim against the Respondent fails
The Respondent denied employing the 11th and 12th Grievants, alleging they were engaged by Henry M. Jackson Foundation (HJF MRI). The court noted the Respondent did not issue contracts to them and internal minutes referred only to the other Grievants. Relying on the burden of proof of the employment relationship lying with the claimant, the court held the claimant should have sued HJF MRI rather than demand third-party proceedings.
Whether the Grievants were unfairly and wrongfully terminated on account of redundancy or their fixed term contracts expired automatically
The Grievants were on fixed term contracts which ended by effluxion of time; there was no unfair termination or redundancy
The contracts ran from 1st March 2018 to 30th September 2018, renewable at the employer's option subject to availability of funds, consistent with section 10(3)(c) of the Employment Act. The Grievants were notified in July and September 2018 of non-renewal due to reduced donor funding. Following the Presbyterian Church of East Africa case, fixed term contracts are self-terminating and carry no expectations beyond expiry; non-renewal for lack of funding is not redundancy.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
The Claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought and the entire claim is dismissed with costs
Having found that the Grievants' fixed term contracts expired by effluxion of time and that there was no unfair termination, redundancy, wrongful dismissal or breach of section 40 of the Employment Act or the CBA, the court held the Claimant was not entitled to reinstatement, compensation, severance pay or any other relief, and dismissed the claim in its entirety with costs.
Legal principles established
#- Fixed term contracts carry no rights, obligations or expectations beyond the date of expiry and are self-terminating
- Existence of an employer-employee relationship is primal to any employment claim and the burden of proving it lies with the claimant
- By industry practice an expired CBA remains in force until a new one is negotiated, signed and registered
Court orders
#- 1.The claim in its entirety is found without merit and is hereby dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (as cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the Grievants' redundancies were unlawful, unfair, unjustified and wrongful
The Grievants were on fixed term contracts which ended by effluxion of time, not redundancy
Reinstatement of all suit Grievants without loss of employment rights and benefits
Claim dismissed in its entirety
Twelve months' compensation for wrongful termination on account of redundancy
No unfair termination found
Severance pay of fifteen days for each complete year of service
No redundancy declared; section 40 Employment Act not applicable
Claims on behalf of the 11th and 12th Grievants
No employer-employee relationship established between them and the Respondent
Costs
The claim is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
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.
In conclusion the claim in its entirety is found without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs
In conclusion the grievants employment contracts were not unfairly terminated on the grounds of redundancy but through efiuxion of time. The claim for unfair termination is therefore found without merit and is hereby rejected.
fixed term contracts carry no rights, obligations, or expectations beyond the date of expiry
it is industry practice that an expired CBA remains in force until a new one is negotiated, signed and registered
The courts holds that the existence of employer-employee relations is primal to any employment claim and the Jurisdiction of the court fiowing from Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act is premised on the existence of employer-employee relationship
Issues in the judgment
#The case title is not stated in the judgment; parties are referred to only as Claimant and Respondent and the cause number is not given
The Claimant inconsistently names the two Grievants allegedly employed by HJF as 'Angela Tonui' and 'Simeon Terer' while the prayers refer to 'Agnes Tonui'
Garbled text in paragraph 39 heading
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Union of National Research Institutes Staff of Kenya (UNRISK) v Kenya Medical Research Insitute (Cause E866 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 1845 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELRC Cause (Nairobi), Claim dated 19th October 2021 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1845/eng@2024-07-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.