Rono v Sai Pharmaceuticals Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E8067 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2151 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found no illegal termination, but the employee still won his untaken leave pay and full costs of the case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant's employment was terminated
No termination was proved; the claimant, having refused to resume work and having failed to attend disciplinary hearings despite accommodation offers, constructively terminated his own employment.
The claimant was on sick leave to 29th May 2021 and did not resume. His May salary was applied to an outstanding debt he had authorised. The employer invited him to show cause and to disciplinary hearings, offering transport and a Zoom option, which he refused. The employer complied with section 41 of the Employment Act. Since the burden of proving unfair termination lies on the employee under section 47(5), and no termination was proved, the question of fairness of termination does not arise.
Whether the 2018 contract and alleged variation of terms were valid
The 2018 contract relied on by the claimant was not signed by the employer and was not valid; the COVID-19 salary cut of 20% was a lawful variation accepted by the claimant without coercion.
The contract dated 11th June 2018 was signed only by the claimant and not by the employer, unlike subsequent fixed term contracts signed by two directors, so it could not prove employment on the claimed terms. On the salary cut, the claimant signed the acceptance clause on 2nd May 2020, was well educated, renewed his contract thereafter without objection, and raised no issue during employment. The court accepted the cuts were necessitated by COVID-19 to keep the business afloat and retain employees.
What reliefs were the claimant entitled to
Only leave pay for 31 untaken days, awarded at the contract salary of Kshs. 75,000, since section 28(4) of the Employment Act limits leave carry-over to 18 months but the claimant proved untaken leave days.
The respondent's evidence showed the claimant took 7 days leave in 2020 (14 remaining) and 4 days in 2021 (17 remaining), totalling 31 days. As the employment relationship is over, leave in lieu is awarded at the contract salary. All other heads (salary, deductions, notice, commissions, house allowance, service pay, compensation) failed for the reasons found above.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proving that an unfair termination or wrongful dismissal occurred rests on the employee, while the employer bears the burden of justifying the grounds for termination.
- An employer alleging absconding must reasonably demonstrate that efforts were made to contact the employee without success.
- A contract of employment not signed by the employer is not a valid document on which variation of terms can be proved.
- An employee who is unwilling to attend the place of work cannot expect to be paid salary; salary is the price in exchange for labour.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the claimant against the respondent for untaken 31 days leave at Kshs. 75,000
- 2.Interest at court rate from date of filing suit
- 3.Costs of the suit to the claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations claims (Employment Act, 2007)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rono v Sai Pharmaceuticals Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E8067 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2151 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (memorandum of claim dated 23rd September 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2151/eng@2025-07-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.