Koimur v Egerton University (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E002 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2818 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court confirmed that your signed contract and applicable CBA fix your retirement age, and pension claims belong with the pension scheme, not the employer.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Terms of engagement and applicable retirement age
The claimant's terms of engagement, including the KUSU CBA, provided for retirement at 60 years; she admitted retiring at 60 per the CBA.
The court reviewed the claimant's employment history, her membership of KUSU (not UASU), her payslip subscriptions, and her admissions in cross-examination that as a public servant she knew she would retire at 60. Mr Miano's retirement at 65 was explained by his transfer to teaching staff status upon his own request. The court held the contract and CBA clearly fixed her retirement age at 60.
Whether retirement at 60 was lawful / discriminatory
No illegality or discrimination was established; retirement at 60 accorded with the contract and CBA.
The court found the claimant's comparator argument (Mr Miano retired at 65) did not establish discrimination, since Miano had become teaching staff in the Faculty of Health Sciences on his own request and teaching staff retire at 65-70 depending on grade. The claimant had her own signed contract, and a change to it required mutual agreement under section 10(5) of the Employment Act.
Entitlement to pension dues
The pension claim should be directed to the independent pension scheme, not the respondent.
The claimant admitted membership of a pension scheme independent of the respondent and admitted she had not submitted her claim to the scheme, nor produced any letter from the scheme declining payment. The court therefore found the claim against the respondent unfounded despite the respondent's admission in its defence of owing Kshs 2,322,105 to be paid by the Government of Kenya.
Legal principles established
#- An employee is bound by the terms of their own individual contract, and the retirement age applicable is that fixed by the contract and the applicable CBA, not by the treatment of other employees transferred to different departments.
- A transfer of a fellow employee to a teaching department on request, changing his retirement age, does not amount to discrimination against an employee who remained in her own department under her original contract.
Court orders
#- 1.The entire claim is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes (Employment Act; Constitution Articles 27, 28, 41, 42, 23 invoked in the claim)
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.
- Thiongo v Egerton University (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E014 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1582 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1582 (KLR)30 May 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koimur v Egerton University (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E002 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2818 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Memorandum of Claim dated 23rd January, 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2818/eng@2024-11-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.