Wendo (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Dr Charles Maringo - Deceased) v National Council of Churches of Kenya & another (Cause 858 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1334 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a doctor's summary dismissal was fair because he ignored a show-cause notice and skipped disciplinary hearings, so his estate recovered nothing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the parties were in a contract of service and who the employer(s) were
- 2.How and when the contract of service was terminated
- 3.Whether the summary dismissal of the deceased was unfair in substance and procedure
- 4.What remedies, if any, flow from the determination
Key legal issues
#Whether the deceased was an employee and who his employer was
The parties were in a contract of service and the respondents were joint employers, the 2nd respondent being a subsidiary of the 1st.
The Court found no dispute that a contract of service existed. The 2nd respondent was a wholly owned subsidiary of the 1st, and the HR Manager served both entities. The probationary appointment of 01.03.2018/01.03.2019 was extended and culminated in a two-year service agreement dated 28.03.2019 running from 01.02.2019 to 31.01.2021, with a gross monthly salary of Kshs. 492,140/-.
Whether the summary dismissal was unfair in substance and procedure
The dismissal was fair both in substance and procedure.
The reason for termination was the deceased's failure to explain his absenteeism and his failure to attend the numerous disciplinary hearings scheduled on 13.09.2019, 19.09.2019, 27.09.2019 and 01.10.2019. Although the deceased was unwell, he failed to provide medical certificates to justify his absence. The Court found the reason valid and genuine under section 43 and the procedure fair under section 45 of the Employment Act, the dismissal having been anchored on section 44(4)(a) and (e).
Whether the dismissal was really on account of ill-health or incapacity
No - the dismissal flowed from the show-cause notice for absenteeism and the deceased's neglect of the disciplinary process, not from the prolonged ill-health.
The claimant argued that under clause 10.3 of the contract, prolonged ill-health could not ground summary dismissal. The Court held that while the deceased may have been on sporadic sick-offs, his conduct in failing to respond to the show-cause notice showed he had opted not to cooperate. The termination was a flow from the absenteeism notice and the gross misconduct of ignoring the disciplinary process.
What remedies are available
None; the claim was dismissed in its entirety.
Having found the dismissal fair, no declaration, compensation, notice pay or damages were justified. The claim for salary for the remainder of the contract also failed because the separation freed both parties from the contract and no impediment to gainful engagement attributable to the respondents was shown. The Court also declined costs considering the unique circumstances of the case.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who fails to respond to a show-cause notice and fails to attend disciplinary hearings may be summarily dismissed for gross misconduct under section 44(4) of the Employment Act, and such dismissal will be fair in substance and procedure.
- A valid reason for termination exists where an employee fails to explain absenteeism as required, per sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
- Upon termination of a term contract, parties are freed from the contract and salary for the unexpired term is not payable absent justification.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the respondents against the claimant
- 2.Dismissal of the suit
- 3.No orders on costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes (Employment Act 2007)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the termination of the deceased's employment was unfair, unlawful, null and void
The Court found the dismissal was justified both in substance and procedure
Kshs. 7,874,240/- being salary for the remainder of the contract period
Once parties separated, they were freed from the contract; no reason shown that the deceased could not engage in gainful employment
12 months' compensation for unfair termination (Kshs. 5,905,680/-)
Compensation not justified as the dismissal was not unfair or unlawful
One month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 492,140/-)
Summary dismissal under section 44 of the Employment Act entitled the respondents to dismiss without notice
General and aggravated damages
Flowing from the finding that the dismissal was fair, no damages were awardable
Costs
No orders on costs - each party to bear their 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.
In conclusion judgment is hereby entered for the respondents against the claimant for dismissal of the suit with no orders on costs.
Thus, the Court finds that the reason for termination was valid as genuine per section 43 of the Act, it was fair as relating to the deceased's conduct and the respondent's operational requirements, and , the procedure adopted was fair – per section 45 of the Act.
the dismissal was a fiow from the notice to show cause which was about absenteeism and then neglect to submit to the disciplinary process that had been commenced
The claimant has not shown any reason attributable to the respondents that may have impaired the deceased from engaging gainfully after the termination.
The Court has considered the unique circumstances of the case and no orders on costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to a letter of appointment dated 01.03.2019 while the respondents' pleadings state the appointment letter was dated 01.03.2018, an internal inconsistency in dates.
Typographical errors in the judgment text, e.g. 'sick ofi' for 'sick off' and 'fiow' for 'flow', and the dismissal letter refers to days worked up to '5th August 2010' where 2019 appears intended.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wendo (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Dr Charles Maringo - Deceased) v National Council of Churches of Kenya & another (Cause 858 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1334 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1334/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.