Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the provided judgment· [2025] KEELRC 744 (KLR)

Kiruhi v Nusunusu Production Limited (Cause E964 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 744 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
7 March 2025
BOByram Ongaya
689 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled a written email resignation stands, and an alleged verbal retraction can't be proved to undo it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, employed as a production manager by contract dated 30.07.2018 at a monthly salary of Kshs. 350,000.00 plus allowances, sued the respondent alleging unfair, unprocedural and unlawful termination. She claimed that from March 2020 the respondent defaulted on salaries, prompting her resignation notice by email in July 2020, which she alleged she verbally retracted after a promise to resolve issues. She alleged she was treated with indignity contrary to Article 28, subjected to unfair administrative action contrary to Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act, and that the respondent terminated her employment by aborting a disciplinary process and purporting to accept her resignation effective 03.08.2020. She sought declarations, 12 months' compensation, salary arrears, notice pay, refund of computer hire charges, a certificate of service, costs, and other relief. The respondent did not enter appearance or file a defence. The court found service of summons was not properly effected, as it was made through email addresses not provided or authorised by the respondent. On the merits, the court held that the employment ended by the claimant's resignation email of 27.07.2020; the alleged oral rescission was inadmissible under the parol evidence rule; and the claimant could not have resigned and remained in employment, nor did she prove she worked during the period. The court took judicial notice of peak COVID-19 conditions and found the claimant had concealed that material fact. Post-resignation transactions were misconceived, the claim for computer hire was unauthorised and unexplained, and the unexplained two-year delay without demand rendered the suit a mere afterthought. The suit was dismissed with no costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of service of summons and statement of claim

Holding

Service through email addresses not provided by or authorised by the respondent was not proper service

Reasoning

The court examined the affidavit of service dated 25.01.2023 and inferred from it that service was effected through email addresses not provided by the respondent or an authorised officer. Proper service being a prerequisite to a contested undefended claim, the court found service not properly effected, though it proceeded to determine the suit on its merits.

p. 2
02

Whether termination was unfair or the employment ended by resignation

Holding

Employment ended by the claimant's resignation email of 27.07.2020; the oral rescission was inadmissible

Reasoning

The claimant issued a resignation notice by email dated 20/27.07.2020 citing non-payment of salary. She alleged a verbal retraction upon a promise to resolve issues, but the court held the alleged oral rescission inadmissible under the parol evidence rule. A person cannot resign and remain in employment, and the claimant did not prove she worked after resigning. The court also took judicial notice that COVID-19 was at its peak, a material fact the claimant concealed.

p. 2
03

Whether the suit was an afterthought due to delay without demand

Holding

The suit was a mere afterthought as no demand was made between 19.11.2020 and filing on 21.12.2022

Reasoning

The claimant did not plead or explain making any demand on the respondent between the alleged aborted disciplinary process of 19.11.2020 and the filing of suit on 21.12.2022. The court treated the unexplained delay and absence of demand as indicating the suit was unjustified and an afterthought, contributing to its dismissal.

p. 2
04

Claim for refund of computer hire charges

Holding

The claim was unjustified as the hire was unauthorised and unexplained

Reasoning

The claimant sought Kshs. 160,000.00 for hiring a computer for 16 days. The court found she did not show the hire was made with the respondent's authority and that the circumstances of the hire were not explained. The claim therefore failed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An alleged oral rescission of a written resignation notice is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule
  • A claimant who resigns cannot continue to claim as though the employment relationship subsists; post-resignation dealings are misconceived
  • An unexplained, lengthy delay in making any demand before filing suit may render the suit an afterthought

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is dismissed
  2. 2.No costs awarded - each side to bear own costs in effect
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (specific provision not cited in the provided judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kiruhi v Nusunusu Production Limited (Cause E964 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 744 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the provided judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/744/eng@2025-03-07

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.