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 AllowedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2025] KEELRC 1625 (KLR)

Haji t/a Almumin High School v Andunga (Appeal E011 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1625 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 May 2025
JRJames Rika
1,359 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed that sacking a deputy principal without a hearing was unfair, but capped his payout, blocking double compensation for the same dismissal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent, formerly Deputy Principal of the Appellant's school on a 3-year contract, was terminated on 29th November 2017 after serving 1½ years. The Trial Court awarded him Kshs. 210,000 (6 months' salary) as damages for unlawful and unfair termination and Kshs. 420,000 (described as 12 months' salary compensation and also as damages for breach of contract), with costs and interest. The Appellant appealed on four grounds, contending termination was fair, the Respondent had refused to supply his TSC registration certificate, warnings preceded the dismissal, and the fixed-term nature of the contract precluded damages based on the outstanding contract period. The appeal was canvassed by written submissions on the Record of Appeal. The Court found no fault with the Trial Court's conclusion that termination was unfair and unlawful: two termination letters of the same date gave inconsistent reasons, and there was no evidence the Respondent was heard on the allegations; warnings are no substitute for a hearing under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act. However, the Court held the Trial Court erred in awarding the equivalent of 18 months' salary for a single act of wrongful termination. Section 49(1)(c) caps compensation at 12 months' salary, and contractual damages cannot be added to statutory compensation without turning the cap into a floor, contrary to legislative intent, as explained in G.M.V v Bank of Africa, Eastwood v Magnox, Elizabeth Wakanyi Kibe and Telkom Kenya v Ngokonyo. The appeal was partially allowed: the contractual damages of Kshs. 420,000 were set aside, the Kshs. 210,000 statutory compensation was upheld, and no order was made on the costs of the Appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination was fair and lawful

Holding

Termination was unfair and unlawful; the reasons in the two termination letters were inconsistent and the Respondent was never heard on the allegations

Reasoning

Two termination letters dated the same day gave inconsistent reasons - failure to meet operational requirements versus unsatisfactory performance. There was no evidence the Respondent was heard on any allegation. If the complaint was failure to supply a TSC certificate, a specific charge and hearing under Sections 41 and 45 were required; if performance, a PIP and hearing were required. Prior warnings did not cure the absence of a hearing.

p. 2
02

Whether the Trial Court could award both statutory compensation and contractual damages

Holding

No; the award of separate contractual damages was erroneous and was set aside, leaving only the 6 months' salary statutory compensation

Reasoning

Section 49(1)(c) caps compensation at 12 months' salary. The Trial Court awarded 6 months under Section 49(1)(c) plus 12 months as 'compensation' or contractual damages, totalling 18 months for a single act of wrongful termination. Citing G.M.V v Bank of Africa, Eastwood v Magnox and Elizabeth Wakanyi Kibe, the Court held this departs from the legislative balance and risks turning the cap into a floor.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Warnings are not a substitute for a proper hearing under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
  • Compensation for unfair termination is capped at 12 months' salary and an employee cannot recover both statutory compensation and separate contractual damages for the same act of wrongful termination
  • Employment remedies must be proportionate to the economic injury sustained and courts should discourage employees from multiplying remedies
  • Inconsistent reasons in termination letters undermine the validity of a termination

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appeal is partly allowed
  2. 2.The award of damages for breach of contract in the sum of Kshs. 420,000 is set aside
  3. 3.The Appellant shall pay to the Respondent the equivalent of 6 months' salary in compensation for unfair and unlawful termination at Kshs. 210,000, as ordered by the Trial Court
  4. 4.No order on the costs of the Appeal
On appeal from
Trial Court (not specified in the judgment)
Not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over appeals from the Trial Court (statutory basis not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Haji t/a Almumin High School v Andunga (Appeal E011 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1625 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1625/eng@2025-05-30

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