Kiugu v Jubilee Holdings Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E6038 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2089 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Claimant was constructively dismissed by the Respondent
- 2.If (i) above is in the affirmative, whether the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the suit?
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed
Yes - the Respondent's conduct, including loss of trust, contacting the Claimant's doctor about confidential medical matters, and a suspension on unverified grounds while on sick leave, amounted to a repudiatory breach that forced the resignation
Applying the Coca Cola East & Central Africa Limited v Maria Kagai Ligaga principles, the court traced a series of events: a contested performance rating dropped from 91% to 55% then 54%, a grievance dismissed as an attempt to subvert the PIP, an unauthorised inquiry into the Claimant's medical details by the Respondent's Forensics Department, and a half-pay suspension on unverified IT infractions during sick leave. The court found the Respondent had lost trust and goodwill, and that the Claimant's resignation letter confirmed the employer's conduct was the effective reason for termination.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to pay for three additional roles (Kshs.16,445,000/=)
No - the claim failed for want of proof
Although the Claimant asserted he performed three additional substantive roles across eight companies, the court found no concrete or documentary evidence supporting the allegation, noting he was aware his managerial role could involve serving other offices or group companies, and no separate contracts existed for the alleged roles. Applying sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, the court held it would be presumptuous to award compensation for unproved additional positions.
Whether placement on the Performance Improvement Plan constituted an unfair labour practice
No - the employer was entitled to evaluate its employee and place him on a PIP
The court declined to treat the performance review process, however questionable the treatment appeared, as an unfair labour practice in itself. It held that courts cannot prevent employers from evaluating employees and taking necessary steps to maintain competitiveness. The evaluation was conducted by the line manager for 2023 and the PIP followed, which the court found lawful.
Quantum of relief for constructive dismissal
One month's salary in lieu of notice (Kshs.550,000/=) plus two months' gross pay compensation (Kshs.1,100,000/=), given the short duration of employment, and an order for the certificate of service
Having found constructive dismissal, the court awarded notice pay and compensation of two months' gross pay, expressly taking into account that the Claimant worked for the Respondent for a short period (about 14 months). The claim for additional positions and leave pay was declined for want of proof, and the certificate of service was ordered under section 51 of the Employment Act.
Legal principles established
#- Constructive dismissal is established where the employer's conduct creates a hostile environment that forces the employee to resign, applying the Coca Cola v Ligaga principles including repudiatory breach, objective test and causation
- A party alleging a fact must prove it; he who alleges must prove under sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act
- Courts will not interfere with an employer's legitimate performance evaluation and placement of an employee on a Performance Improvement Plan
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Claimant's employment came to an end by virtue of constructive dismissal
- 2.One month's salary in lieu of notice amounting to Kshs.550,000/=
- 3.Compensation for wrongful and unlawful constructive dismissal equivalent to 2 months' gross pay, amounting to Kshs.1,100,000/=
- 4.The Respondent to issue the Claimant the certificate of service in accordance with Section 51 of the Employment Act, if not already issued
- 5.The Claimant shall have costs of the suit together with interest at 14% per annum from the date of delivering judgment until final payment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and the Constitution (Article 41 fair labour practices invoked)
Relief refused
#Compensation for service rendered in three additional positions (Kshs.16,445,000/=)
The claim was not supported by concrete and factual evidence or documentation
Leave pay of Kshs.393,997.01
Leave pay was not proved
Costs
The Claimant shall have costs of the suit together with interest at 14% per annum from the date of delivering judgment until final payment.
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.
The court holds that the Claimant was constructively dismissed as the Respondent created an environment that was hostile and he was forced to resign.
The court is not an inspector for employers and cannot stop them evaluating their employees and taking other necessary steps to ensure their employees keep on the cutting edge.
The allegations that the Claimant served three other roles is not supported by any concrete and factual evidence and or documentation.
A declaration that the Claimant's employment came to an end by virtue of constructive dismissal;
The Respondent to issue the Claimant the certificate of service in accordance with Section 51 of the Employment Act. If not already issued.
The Claimant shall have costs of the suit together with interest at 14% per annum from the date of delivering judgment until final payment.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the Claimant's performance was rated 'far above expectations' at 95% and elsewhere records 121% mid-year and 91% year-end scores, while the Respondent's assessment was 55% (adjusted to 54%); the differing figures are not reconciled
The judgment refers to claim exhibits Nos. 34-38 although the claimant's bundle was marked exhibits 1 to 27
The case number and neutral citation do not appear on the judgment as provided
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiugu v Jubilee Holdings Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E6038 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2089 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2089/eng@2025-07-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.