Murila v Presbyterian Church Hospital & another (Cause E1695 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 1127 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a hospital unlawfully fired a surgeon, awarding him over Kshs.1.3 million even though the case was 20 years old.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction and limitation
The court had jurisdiction; the limitation objection was a non-issue having been decided in prior rulings of the same court, and the striking out of the original suit in a court without jurisdiction did not bar the claim
The suit was originally filed in the magistrates' court in 2010 within the limitation period. Since section 87(2) of the Employment Act, 2007 confers exclusive jurisdiction over employment matters on the ELRC, the magistrates' court lacked jurisdiction, and its striking out of the suit did not determine the claimant's right to sue. The transfer to the ELRC in 2016 revived the case, and prior rulings of 2017 and 2020 had already settled the limitation issue.
Whether termination of employment was wrongful, unfair and unlawful
The termination was unlawful; the Respondents were responsible for the unlawful termination through unprocedural interference with the employment contract
The court found the alleged contract with the Wilson Rehabilitation Foundation grey and unproven, preferring the claimant's account that the Foundation merely supplemented his salary while he remained the Respondents' employee. The compulsory three-month leave and the letter of 10th November 2005 referring the claimant to the Foundation amounted to unlawful termination.
Entitlement to relief
The Claimant, having proved unlawful termination, was entitled to the relief sought, and the claim was allowed with damages quantified as unpaid salary and one month's pay in lieu of notice
Having found a case of unlawful termination, the court held the claimant entitled to the relief sought and allowed the claim, awarding unpaid salary for the periods claimed and one month's salary in lieu of notice, with costs to the Respondent and interest at court rates from the date of judgment.
Legal principles established
#- A suit filed in a court without jurisdiction is not a nullity per se; the proper course is to transfer it to the appropriate forum
- The doctrine of legal separateness is of limited utility in employment and labour relations where employers devise multi-layered legal and business entities
- Where the transferee court has exclusive jurisdiction over employment matters, striking out of a suit by a court lacking jurisdiction does not determine the claimant's right to sue
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the employment of the Claimant by the Respondent was wrongful, unfair and unlawful
- 2.Salary for the period between 1st January, 2005 to 11th October, 2005 - Kshs.927,027.00
- 3.Salary for 11th October, 2005 to 11th November, 2005 - Kshs.194,856.25
- 4.One (1) month's salary in lieu of notice - Kshs.194,856.25 (total of claim Kshs.1,316,739.50)
- 5.The costs of the claim shall be borne by the Respondent
- 6.Interest at the court rates from the date of the judgment till payment in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 87(2) of the Employment Act, 2007 - exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over employment and labour relations matters; suit transferred from Nairobi Chief Magistrate's Civil Case No. 7973 of 2010 by order of 26th May 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murila v Presbyterian Church Hospital & another (Cause E1695 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 1127 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC 1695 of 2016 (formerly Nairobi CMCC No. 7973 of 2010). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1127/eng@2025-03-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.