Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedStatement of Claim dated 23rd June 2023 (Cause)· [2025] KEELRC 1616 (KLR)

Rukunga v Epix Investments Limited (Cause E495 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1616 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 May 2025
LNLINNET NDOLO
2,373 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded an employee Kshs. 1.68 million after his employer changed office locks and passwords, forcing him to resign.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed as Assistant Accountant from 28th July 2017, resigned by letter dated 29th June 2020 citing an indefinite suspension from 8th June 2020, denial of access to the office through changed locks, lockout from accounting software and itax passwords, occupation of his workstation by a new team, and lack of communication. He claimed constructive dismissal, seeking 12 months' compensation, leave pay, salary balance, house allowance, notice pay, refund of a tax penalty deduction, costs and interest. The Respondent maintained the resignation was voluntary. The court framed two issues: constructive dismissal and entitlement to remedies. Applying the Coca Cola v Ligaga principles, the court found the Respondent's conduct - admitting changed locks and passwords, leaving the Claimant without work when he reported, and keeping no communication on his suspension - made it impossible to perform his duties, concluding he was constructively dismissed. On remedies, the court awarded six months' salary in compensation (Kshs. 1,320,000), one month's notice pay (Kshs. 220,000), leave pay for 17.5 days (Kshs. 128,333) in the absence of leave records, and a refund of the unlawful Kshs. 10,000 tax penalty surcharge, holding that a surcharge requires a fair disciplinary process under Section 41 of the Employment Act. The house allowance claim was rejected as unjust enrichment and the Kshs. 3,364 salary balance claim failed for want of proof. Total judgment of Kshs. 1,678,333 with interest and costs to the Claimant. Delivered virtually at Nairobi on 29th May 2025 by Linnet Ndolo, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Constructive dismissal

Holding

The Claimant proved constructive dismissal; the Respondent's conduct made it impossible for him to discharge his duties

Reasoning

The Respondent suspended the Claimant indefinitely without communication, changed office locks and system passwords denying access to both the physical and virtual workspace, and left his workstation unassigned when he showed up. The Chairman admitted changing passwords and locks. The conduct went to the root of the employment relationship and compelled the resignation.

p. 6
02

Unlawful surcharge (tax penalty deduction)

Holding

The unilateral deduction of Kshs. 10,000 as tax penalty was an unlawful surcharge

Reasoning

Relying on Kenya National Library Services Board v Beatrice N. Ayoti, the court held that a surcharge is a disciplinary action requiring a fair process under Section 41 of the Employment Act. No such process preceded the deduction, so a refund was due.

p. 6
03

House allowance claim

Holding

Rejected despite absence of a housing component in the letter of appointment

Reasoning

The Claimant was fairly remunerated and never complained during employment; awarding house allowance retrospectively merely because the pay statement was poorly documented would unjustly enrich the employee.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A surcharge effected against an employee without a fair disciplinary process under Section 41 of the Employment Act is unlawful
  • Constructive dismissal principles from Coca Cola v Ligaga guide the assessment of repudiatory breach

Court orders

#
  1. 1.6 months' salary in compensation in the sum of Kshs. 1,320,000
  2. 2.1 month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs. 220,000
  3. 3.Leave pay for 17.5 days in the sum of Kshs. 128,333
  4. 4.Refund of unlawful deduction on tax penalty of Kshs. 10,000
  5. 5.Total judgment of Kshs. 1,678,333 with interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
  6. 6.Claimant awarded the costs of the case

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41

Cases cited (5)

  • Pretoria Society for the Care of the Retarded v Loots
    (1997) 18 ILJ 981 (LAC)
  • Nathan Ogada Atiagaga v David Engineering Limited
    Cause No 419 of 2014
  • Milton M. Isanya v Aga Khan Hospital
    [2017] eKLR
  • Coca Cola East & Central Africa Limited v Maria Kagai Ligaga
    [2015] eKLR
  • Kenya National Library Services Board v Beatrice N. Ayoti
    [2014] KEELRC 1415 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act; Employment and Labour Relations Court Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rukunga v Epix Investments Limited (Cause E495 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1616 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Statement of Claim dated 23rd June 2023 (Cause). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1616/eng@2025-05-29

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