Kegocha v Bones (As an official of Good Shepherd Africa Gospel Church, Ngong Road) & another (Cause 55 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 881 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a pastor unfairly fired a church employee and personally owes her over Kshs.1 million plus pension and tax payments.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Who was the claimant's employer - the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent?
- 2.Whether the termination of the claimant's employment was substantively and procedurally unfair
- 3.Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed, including PAYE, pension, public holiday pay, certificate of service and costs
Key legal issues
#Identity of the employer
The 1st respondent, not the 2nd respondent, was the claimant's employer as the Pastor and Manager/Agent of the Local Church Council.
Section 2 of the Employment Act defines employer to include an agent, foreman, manager or factor. The 1st respondent admitted he served the termination letter and acted on behalf of the Local Church Council. Since the Council was not shown to be a legal person, the 1st respondent in his capacity as Pastor and Manager amounted to the employer.
Procedural and substantive fairness of termination
The termination was unfair both procedurally and substantively; maximum 12 months' compensation awarded.
No minutes of the disciplinary meeting, no show-cause or invitation letters, no particulars of misconduct under section 43, no valid reason under section 45 and no notice and hearing under section 41. The failure to consider the administrative appeal was aggravating. Compensation was computed at Kshs.85,560.20 per month (per the February 2016 payslip) for 12 months.
Unremitted PAYE and pension contributions
The claimant is entitled to the unremitted PAYE and pension as claimed, per the deductions on the exhibited payslips.
The claims were specifically particularised and, in the absence of any material from the respondents showing remittance, the court found the claimant entitled as claimed and per the deductions shown on the exhibited payslips.
Public holiday pay claim
The claim failed for want of particularisation and strict proof.
The claimant did not particularise the days worked on public holidays nor the base of the computation; such claims must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved as trite law, so the claim for Kshs.151,317 was dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- Where an entity controlling the employer is not shown to be a person in law, the manager or agent who acts for the employer against an employee is the employer as defined in section 2 of the Employment Act.
- Termination based on general, empty allegations without particulars, notice or hearing is unfair both in substance and procedure under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
- Claims for public holiday pay must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
Court orders
#- 1.Permanent injunction issued barring the respondents or their agents from maligning the claimant in view of the unfair termination
- 2.Declaration that the termination of the claimant's contract of employment was unfair
- 3.1st respondent to pay Kshs.1,026,722.40 (less PAYE) for unfair termination and Kshs.51,821.44 in outstanding pension by 01.06.2025, failing interest at court rates
- 4.1st respondent to indemnify the claimant or pay PAYE deductions of Kshs.256,635.88 plus accrued interest or penalties
- 5.Delivery of the claimant's certificate of service per section 51 of the Employment Act, 2007 by 11.04.2025
- 6.1st respondent to pay the claimant's costs of the suit; 2nd respondent to bear own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment Act, 2007 (Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes)
Relief refused
#Payment for working during public holidays (Kshs.151,317)
The claim was not particularised nor strictly proved
Costs
The 1st respondent to pay the claimant's costs of the suit and the 2nd respondent to bear own costs of the suit.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
By those testimonies and the Local Church Council not having been shown to be a person in law, the Court finds that the 1st respondent as the Pastor and Manager amounted to the employer as defined in the Act.
Accordingly the Court returns that the procedure and reasons for termination were both unfair.
The claim on pay for work on public holidays will fail.
1. The permanent injunction hereby issued baring the respondents by themselves or their respective agents from maligning the claimant in view of the unfair termination herein.
3. The 1st respondent to pay the claimant a sum of Kshs.1,026,722.40 (less PAYE) for the unfair termination and Kshs.51,821.44 in outstanding due pension by 01.06.2025 failing interest at Court rates to be payable thereon until full and final payment.
6. The 1st respondent to pay the claimant’s costs of the suit and the 2nd respondent to bear own costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Compensation computed at Kshs.85,560.20 per month differs from the pleaded salary of Kshs.89,000 used in the claimant's computation of 12 months' compensation.
Internal inconsistency in the judgment's narration of the warning letter response - the judgment first states she signed under coercion and later states she failed to complain to the lay leader.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kegocha v Bones (As an official of Good Shepherd Africa Gospel Church, Ngong Road) & another (Cause 55 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 881 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/881/eng@2025-03-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.