Gitonga v Mariakani Cottage Hospital (Cause E503 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1183 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether termination was unfair
Termination was unfair and unlawful; the Respondent neither established a valid reason nor followed fair procedure under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
The Claimant was suspended on 12th September 2022 on allegations of driving off in the Respondent's vehicle without permission, which he denied, showing gate passes as evidence of permission. He was never recalled, subjected to further disciplinary process, or formally dismissed. In an undefended claim, the Court found suspension was intended as termination, without valid reason or fair procedure.
Entitlement to remedies
Claimant awarded salary arrears of Kshs. 345,400, gratuity of Kshs. 50,000 based on the contractual clause, and compensation equivalent of 6 months' salary at Kshs. 150,000.
Arrears and notice pay were proved at Kshs. 345,400. Gratuity was computed from the contractual clause of 15 days' salary per completed year over 4 years at Kshs. 25,000 monthly. Compensation of 6 months' salary was held reasonable given 4 years and 6 months of service, about 2 years to contract completion, and no contribution by the Claimant to the termination.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must establish a valid reason and follow fair procedure in terminating employment under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
- Suspension without recall or further disciplinary process may be treated by the employee as constructive of termination.
- Where a Respondent files no pleadings, evidence or documents, the Court has no reason to doubt the uncontroverted claim of the Claimant.
Court orders
#- 1.It is declared that termination was unfair and unlawful.
- 2.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant arrears of salary at Kshs. 345,400; gratuity at Kshs. 50,000; and compensation for unfair termination equivalent of 6 months' salary at Kshs. 150,000 – total Kshs. 545,400.
- 3.Costs to the Claimant.
- 4.Interest allowed at court rate from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, Sections 41, 43 and 45 applied)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gitonga v Mariakani Cottage Hospital (Cause E503 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1183 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1183/eng@2025-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.