Mutonyi-Sakuda v Board of Governors, St Andrew's School, Turi (Cause E680 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 2672 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that fixed-term contracts can carry a legitimate expectation of renewal, awarding an executive over Kshs. 10 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Interpretation and applicability of clause 2.2 (6 months' notice)
Clause 2.2 applied to the Claimant in her second year of service, entitling her to 6 months' notice
A plain reading of clause 2.2 shows it applied from the second year of the existing contract, not to future contracts. It would be illogical for a fixed-term contract containing no notice clause to include a notice provision regulating contracts executed after its expiry. The contract was ambiguous, and as a contract of adhesion drafted by the Employer with superior bargaining power, the contra proferentem doctrine resolved the ambiguity against the Respondent.
Legitimate expectation of renewal
The Claimant had a reasonable and legitimate expectation of renewal of her fixed-term contract
Although fixed-term contracts carry no general expectancy of renewal, evidence may create such an expectation. Here, clause 2.2 contemplated service beyond 2 years; the salary reduction letter extended to 31st August 2020, beyond the 14th June 2020 expiry; no notice of non-renewal was issued in January 2020 per school practice; and her children continued schooling with an IGSE candidate. The Court declined to read the Transparency International decision at face value, applying instead Keen Kleeners and Section 45(5)(d).
Whether termination/non-renewal was unfair
The termination and non-renewal were unfair, unlawful, and amounted to unfair labour practice violating Article 41
Section 45(4)(b) requires examination of whether the employer acted in accordance with justice and equity. The Respondent terminated abruptly mid-term, disregarded the Claimant's family needs including an IGSE candidate child, provided no non-renewal notice per practice, and acted during a Covid-19 lockdown. Employers have an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, breached by the Respondent's treatment of the Claimant and her children.
Legal principles established
#- Ambiguities in an employment contract drafted by the Employer are construed against the Employer under the contra proferentem doctrine
- Fixed-term contracts can accommodate the doctrine of legitimate expectation of renewal, based on the employer's conduct and previous practice, supported by Section 45(5)(d) of the Employment Act
- Unfair termination under Section 45(4)(b) extends beyond procedure and valid reason to whether the employer acted in accordance with justice and equity, including treatment of the employee's family
- There is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in contracts of employment
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that termination and non-renewal of the Claimant's contract was unfair, unlawful, and in violation of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and of the Claimant's right to fair labour practices
- 2.Respondent to pay the Claimant notice of 6 months at Kshs. 5,129,400 and compensation equivalent of 6 months' salary at Kshs. 5,129,400 - total Kshs. 10,258,800
- 3.Costs to the Claimant
- 4.Interest at 14% per annum from the date of Judgment till payment in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 41 of the Constitution and the Employment Act, 2007 (first-instance employment claim before the ELRC)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutonyi-Sakuda v Board of Governors, St Andrew's School, Turi (Cause E680 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 2672 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2672/eng@2024-10-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.