Gesami v Catholic University of Eastern Africa (Cause E437 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1970 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that when a fixed-term work contract expires, non-renewal is not unfair termination, even for senior employees.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant held two positions (Director, Quality Assurance and Professor) at exit
She did not; the Director/Professor appointment was extinguished by her appointment as Deputy Vice-Chancellor
The court reasoned that the Director contract was still subsisting when she became Deputy Vice-Chancellor and it would be illogical for her to hold both. The Director contract lapsed on 30th April 2022 without renewal and she never sought renewal, showing she knew it was extinguished. Her own letter of 19th December 2019 acknowledged the administrative nature of her docket.
Whether non-renewal amounted to unfair termination
No; the fixed-term contract ended by effluxion of time on 31st May 2023
The contract had a fixed three-year duration with a start and end date. On expiry there were two possibilities: renewal or non-renewal, and the Respondent elected not to renew. The Respondent retained discretion to renew or not. No disciplinary process was required because effluxion of time is not a disciplinary termination.
Whether legitimate expectation of renewal arose
No legitimate expectation arose
Relying on Supreme Court authority, the court held that legitimate expectation requires a clear, unambiguous representation or past practice. Satisfactory performance was not a guarantee of renewal; by applying for renewal the Claimant herself confirmed renewal was subject to consideration. Citing Transparency International Kenya v Teresa Carlo Omondi, an automatically renewable fixed-term contract is a contradiction in terms.
Whether the Respondent was bound by clause 2.13.1 of its HR Manual to notify the Claimant six months before expiry
The Respondent inconsistently applied the HR Manual, but this did not alter the fixed-term character of the contract
The court observed the Respondent relied on the HR Manual when it faulted the Claimant for applying late, contradicting its claim that clause 2.13 did not apply to a direct Council employee. However, this alone did not negate that the contract had an end date and terminated by effluxion of time.
Legal principles established
#- Fixed-term contracts carry no rights, obligations or expectations of renewal beyond the date of expiry
- Whether a fixed-term contract with a renewal clause is extended is at the employer's discretion and cannot found a claim of legitimate expectation
- An employee on a fixed-term contract whose term expires is deemed to have left by effluxion of time, not unfair termination
- Acceptance of a new appointment extinguishes the earlier fixed-term contract
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed in its entirety with an order that each party bears its own costs
- 2.The Claimant is entitled to a Certificate of Service in line with Section 51(1) of the Employment Act, to issue within 30 days from the date of the Judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Labour Relations Court statute (Employment Act, Section 51(1) invoked for Certificate of Service)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gesami v Catholic University of Eastern Africa (Cause E437 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1970 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No E437 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1970/eng@2024-07-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.