Odhiambo & another v Kenya Medical Training College & another (Petition E080 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2100 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed two KMTC employees' challenge to salary deductions because they had signed reinstatement agreements settling those exact terms.
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 petitioners were bound by the terms of the reinstatement letters dated 12.07.2024 they signed
- 2.Whether the petition is res judicata and an abuse of court process in view of the earlier consent order
- 3.Whether the reinstatement agreement was signed under undue influence
- 4.Whether the petitioners failed to exhaust the grievance procedure in the respondent's 2017 Human Resource Policies & Procedure Manual
- 5.Whether constitutional violations were established
Key legal issues
#Binding effect of the signed reinstatement letters
Each petitioner signed letters dated 12.07.2024 setting out express terms including forfeiture of salary and surcharge amounts, and is bound accordingly
The court found each petitioner signed a reinstatement letter setting out express terms: reinstatement on same terms, commencement on reporting date subject to forfeiting salary claims for the period out of duty, specified surcharge amounts, and compliance with employee regulations. Having voluntarily signed, the petitioners are bound and cannot resile from those terms.
Res judicata and abuse of process
The petition is res judicata because the consent recorded in the earlier petition conclusively determined the dispute, and the grievances raised here ought to have been determined then
The consent entered and recorded in court in the earlier petition conclusively determined the dispute; parties then signed the reinstatement letter terms to implement the consent order. Alleged grievances such as withheld salaries ought to have been determined in the previous petition, so reopening the dispute contravenes section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and constitutes abuse of process.
Alleged undue influence in concluding the reinstatement agreement
Not established; no pleaded particulars and no evidence
The petitioners argued the reinstatement agreement was signed under undue influence, but the court found this was not established by evidence. Further, no particulars of undue influence were pleaded in the petition. The petitioners cannot sign the reinstatement letters and then seek to go back on the terms claiming a reconciliation of the surcharge amount.
Failure to exhaust the grievance procedure
The grievance procedure in clause 12.2 of the 2017 manual was available and was not invoked; this failure supports dismissal
The respondents established a grievance procedure exists in clause 12.2 of the respondent's 2017 manual. The petitioners failed to invoke it despite having genuine avenues to challenge implementation of the reinstatement letters they signed voluntarily. The failure suggests the grievances were not valid and operates as an impetus to dismissal, reinforcing the exhaustion principle.
Constitutional violations
No constitutional violations established; the dispute falls for an ordinary cause of action and the petition is barred by the exhaustion principle
The court found no constitutional violations established in the instant case. The dispute primarily falls for an ordinary cause of action. Invoking Articles 41 and 47 could not bypass the agreed reinstatement terms, the consent order, and the available internal grievance procedure; the petition was chained by the exhaustion doctrine.
Legal principles established
#- Parties are bound by express terms of agreements they voluntarily signed, including reinstatement letters implementing a consent order
- A consent order recorded in court conclusively determines the dispute and cannot be reopened in a subsequent petition
- Failure to invoke an available grievance procedure undermines a petition and supports dismissal under the exhaustion principle
- Undue influence must be pleaded with particulars and established by evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the proceedings
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 41(1) & (2)A and 47(1) of the Constitution 2010 invoked in the petition; employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the ELRC
Relief refused
#Declaration that surcharges levied on petitioners' salary were irregular and null and void
Petitioners were bound by the express terms of the reinstatement letters; no constitutional violation established
Reimbursement of deducted monies and payment of salary arrears unlawfully withheld
Reinstatement letters expressly subjected reinstatement to forfeiting salary claims for the period out of duty; dispute conclusively settled by consent order
Damages for failure to accord procedural fairness in the suspension process
Undue influence not established and no particulars pleaded; grievances should have gone through the grievance procedure
Restraining order against harassment, arrest, intimidation or termination based on the suspension
Petition dismissed as res judicata and abuse of court process
Costs borne by respondents
Court ordered each party to bear own costs given the continuing employment relationship
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the proceedings
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 petition is indeed res-judicata because the consent entered and recorded in Court in the earlier petition conclusively determined the dispute and thereafter parties signed the terms in the reinstatement letter to implement the consent order
The Court finds that as submitted for the respondents the parties are bound accordingly
there were no pleaded particulars of undue infiuence in the petition and then established by evidence
The failure to invoke the grievance procedure suggest the grievances were not valid and operates as an impetus to dismissal of the petition
no constitutional violations have been established in the instant case and the dispute would primarily fall for an ordinary cause of action
In conclusion the petition is dismissed and each party to bear own costs of the proceedings.
Issues in the judgment
#Surcharge amounts stated inconsistently for the 2nd petitioner: the petition says Kshs 1,476,520 while the court's summary of the reinstatement letters states Kshs. 1,426,520
The petition caption refers to a single 'petitioner' while the body and relief clearly involve two petitioners
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odhiambo & another v Kenya Medical Training College & another (Petition E080 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2100 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 14.04.2025 (referencing earlier petition ELRC No. E197 of 2023, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2100/eng@2025-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.