Mini Bakeries (Nairobi) Limited v Ramadhan (Appeal E074 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 578 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's ELRC in Kisumu ruled that legitimate expectation rarely applies in private employment disputes, but contractual retirement benefits under a CBA remain enforceable.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the trial court could originate and determine an unpleaded issue of service beyond age 60
It could not; the issue did not arise in evidence or submissions and did not fall within the Odd Jobs v Mubia exceptions
The court found the issue of service after 60 was common ground to be unpleaded. The witness statement only mentioned retirement at 60, and the respondent's submissions before the trial court did not address it. The Odd Jobs v Mubia exception applies only where the unpleaded issue was in fact left to the court for decision, which was not the case here.
Applicability of legitimate expectation in private employment contracts
The doctrine originates in public law; even if arguable in fixed-term contracts, no promise or representation was proved here
The court endorsed Heineken v Maxam that the doctrine is inapplicable to contractual relationships, while noting Transparency International v Omondi suggesting it may apply to fixed-term contracts. Even on that view, the principles require an express, clear and unambiguous promise, which the respondent never adduced. The trial magistrate therefore fashioned a remedy never prayed for.
Whether the respondent was entitled to retirement benefits under clause 32(3)(ii) of the CBA
Yes, Kshs.101,885.28 as computed by the appellant itself; the trial court erred in conflating pension paid by Jubilee with contractual service benefits
The court found clause 32(3)(ii) on retirement benefits distinct from clause 37's contributory provident scheme paid through Jubilee Insurance. Clause 38(b) on past service benefits applied only to services up to 31st July 2003, before the respondent's 2012 employment. The appellant itself had computed the amount due as Kshs.101,885.28 in its submissions before the trial court.
Claim for Provident Fund contributions
Dismissed; claim unsupported and fully paid by Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd
The respondent admitted on cross-examination to having received payment from Jubilee Insurance under the provident scheme, and the appellant's witness confirmed payment of pension dues. The trial court's dismissal of this head could not be faulted and was upheld on appeal.
Legal principles established
#- A court ought not as a general rule deal with unpleaded issues in its judgment, unless the issue was left to the court for decision as per Odd Jobs v Mubia
- The doctrine of legitimate expectation has its origins and justifications in public law and is typically applicable in public law
- Service pay is not payable where employment terminates under section 35 of the Employment Act, but is payable on retirement where it is a contractual undertaking
- An appellate court is not bound to accept trial court findings of fact based on no evidence, misapprehension of evidence, or wrong principles
Court orders
#- 1.The award of Kshs.94,608.00 as 6 months salary for breach of legitimate expectation is set aside
- 2.The respondent is awarded Kshs.101,885.28 as retirement benefits pursuant to clause 32(3)(ii) of the CBA
- 3.The finding that the respondent was not entitled to Provident Fund contributions is upheld
- 4.Parties shall bear their own costs in the lower court and the appeal
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (ELRC)
- MCELRC No. E244 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's decision in an employment claim
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mini Bakeries (Nairobi) Limited v Ramadhan (Appeal E074 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 578 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). MCELRC Appeal (from MCELRC No. E244 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/578/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.