Orori v Public Service Board – Kisii County Government & 2 others (Cause E096 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2008 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled Kisii County unfairly cut short an employee's fixed-term contract, awarding notice pay, three months' compensation and costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the unilateral variation of the claimant's fixed-term contract by the 2nd respondent rendered the termination unfair
Yes - the unilateral variation of the contract's duration from 3 years to less than 2 years without consultation or written notification was unlawful and the termination had no substantiated reason.
Under Section 10(5) of the Employment Act, any change to matters stipulated in the contract must be made in consultation with the employee and notified in writing. The letter of 5th September 2022 varied the duration without consultation and gave no reason. None of the three alleged reasons - fraud, the Governor's term of office, or retirement age - was substantiated. Fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; the letters of employment made no reference to the Governor's term; and the fixed-term contract was not tied to age.
Whether the termination complied with fair procedure
No - the procedure was flawed: no notice to show cause, no hearing, and the termination letter post-dated the effective end of employment.
Section 41 of the Employment Act imposes mandatory procedural requirements including notice and a hearing before termination on grounds of misconduct. The claimant was not accorded the requisite one month's notice, was not subjected to any disciplinary hearing despite allegations of fraud, and the termination letter dated 5th September 2022 was issued after the employment had already ended on 31st August 2022. Failure to demonstrate compliance with Section 41 rendered the termination procedurally flawed and unfair.
Whether Sections 74 and 75 of the County Governments Act justified the variation and termination
No - the provisions give the County Public Service Board no carte blanche, were not shown to have been invoked, and do not displace the Employment Act.
Section 74 merely empowers the Board to regulate engagement of contract employees, and Section 75 can only be invoked where an investigation into an irregular or fraudulent process has been conducted. The Board adduced no evidence that it invoked either provision or conducted any investigation. In any event, the employment relationship remains contractual and the Employment Act continues to apply to it.
What reliefs flow from a finding of unfair termination
A declaration, one month's salary in lieu of notice, and compensation equivalent to three months' gross salary; unsubstantiated claims for special, exemplary and punitive damages dismissed.
Exercising discretion under Section 49 of the Employment Act, the court considered the claimant's length of service (about 4 years and 8 months), that he did not contribute to the termination, that he appealed wishing to remain in employment, and that he expected to serve his full term. Three months' gross salary was deemed fair compensation, and since no notice was issued, one month's salary in lieu of notice was awarded.
Legal principles established
#- A unilateral variation of a fundamental term of a contract of employment is a repudiation of the contract.
- For a termination to pass muster the employer must prove both substantive justification and fair procedure.
- Allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
- Sections 74 and 75 of the County Governments Act do not oust the provisions of the Employment Act or give the County Public Service Board a carte blanche in dealing with its employees.
- The procedural tenets in Section 41 of the Employment Act are mandatory.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that termination of the claimant's employment by the respondents was unfair.
- 2.One (1) month's salary in lieu of notice.
- 3.Equivalent of three (3) months gross salary as compensation.
- 4.Costs of the suit to the claimant.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (specific enabling provision not cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Orori v Public Service Board – Kisii County Government & 2 others (Cause E096 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2008 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E096 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2008/eng@2025-07-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.