Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (Statement of Claim dated 9th November 2022)· [2025] KEELRC 1755 (KLR)

Mendi & another v Kenya Educational Trust Ltd t/a Pembrooke House (Cause E041 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1755 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 June 2025
3,869 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Two Kenyan sports coaches employed by Pembroke House School since September 2009 sued the school alleging unfair termination and racial discrimination. They were dismissed on 21st April 2022 after show-cause letters dated 2nd April 2022 alleged discrepancies in sports extras billing records, including coercion of pupils into signing extra billing forms contrary to the school's Child Protection Policy. They attended a disciplinary hearing on 20th April 2022, did not call witnesses, were dismissed the next day, and their appeal was unsuccessful. They sought declarations of unfair termination and discrimination, 12 months' compensation, general damages, a certificate of service, and costs. The Respondent defended the dismissal as justified under section 44 of the Employment Act and procedurally fair. The court framed four issues: unfair termination, discrimination, entitlement to relief, and costs. Applying section 45(1) of the Employment Act and the two-limb test in Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission, it found the Respondent failed to prove valid reasons: the billing records lacked clear provenance, no statements were taken from the complaining parents or pupils, and the Claimants' 12-year record was clean. Procedural fairness also failed because the disciplinary hearing minutes were not availed, leaving the process 'shrouded in darkness'. However, the racial discrimination claim was not proved. The court awarded each Claimant 6 months' compensation (Kshs.513,024/=), costs, interest at 14% per annum from judgment, and a certificate of service within 30 days.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimants were unfairly terminated

Holding

Yes. The Respondent failed to establish valid reasons and procedural fairness; the billing records were unverified and the disciplinary hearing proceedings were not availed.

Reasoning

The Respondent's billing records had no clear provenance and no statements from the purported complaining parents or pupils. The Claimants served 12 years with no prior serious complaints. The disciplinary hearing minutes were not produced, so the court could not see what transpired or what tilted the balance against the Claimants. Both limbs of the Anuro test - substantive justification and procedural fairness - therefore failed.

p. 8
02

Whether the Claimants were discriminated against at the workplace

Holding

No. The claim of racial discrimination was not proved on the evidence.

Reasoning

Despite detailed allegations that only black coaches were investigated and disciplined and submissions relying on ILO Convention No. 111 and precedent on the employer's burden of proof, the court found the allegations unsubstantiated. No substantive proof of differential treatment was demonstrated, so the claim of discrimination failed.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • For a termination of employment to pass the fairness test, there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
  • In any claim arising out of termination, the employer must prove the reasons for termination, failing which the termination is deemed unfair under section 45.
  • Summary dismissal must not be resorted to without complying with procedural fairness and natural justice.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimants for unlawful and unprocedural termination
  2. 2.6 months' compensation computed at Kshs.85,504 x 6 = Kshs.513,024/=
  3. 3.Costs of the suit to the Claimants
  4. 4.Interest at 14% per annum from date of judgment until full payment
  5. 5.Certificate of service to be issued within 30 days from the date of judgment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 41
  • Employment ActSection 41(2)
  • Employment ActSection 43(1) and (2)
  • Employment ActSection 44
  • Employment ActSection 44(c)
  • Employment ActSection 45(1) and (2)
  • Employment ActSection 45(2)(b)
  • Employment ActSection 47(5)
  • Employment ActSection 51
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Convention No. 111 on Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958Not stated
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Section 1B

Cases cited (10)

  • Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission
    [2013] eKLR
  • Kichoi v Teita Estate Ltd
    [2022] eKLR
  • Bamburi Cement Limited v Willian Kilonzi
    [2016] eKLR
  • Anthony Mkala Chivati v Malindi Water & Sewage Company Limited
    [2013] eKLR
  • Ol Pejeta Ranching Ltd v David Wanjau Muhoro
    (2017) eKLR
  • Janine Buss v Gems Cambridge International School Ltd
    [2016] eKLR
  • Koki Muhia v Samsung Electronics East Africa Ltd
    [2015] eKLR
  • Kenya Ports Authority v Fadhil Juma Kisuwa
    [2017] eKLR
  • Loice Otieno v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
    Cause 1050 of 2011
  • Kenfreight E.A. Limited & Banson Nguti
    [2016] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Employment Act, Sections 41, 43, 44, 45 and 51 invoked); Article 159(2)(d) and Article 48 of the Constitution cited in the delivery order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mendi & another v Kenya Educational Trust Ltd t/a Pembrooke House (Cause E041 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1755 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Statement of Claim dated 9th November 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1755/eng@2025-06-18

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