Ogola v Strathmore University (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E060 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2173 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that fixed term contracts simply expire on their end date, but employers must still pay at least the legal minimum wage.
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 unlawfully and unfairly dismissed from her employment
- 2.Whether the Claimant was paid as per the Minimum Wage for the relevant period (underpayment as a casual and under the fixed term contract)
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the fixed term contract was unfair
No unfair termination arose; the contract expired on 17th February 2020 by effluxion of time and the letter of 6th February 2020 merely informed the Claimant of the end date
The court found the Claimant signed a letter notifying her of the end of her fixed term contract on 6th February 2020, which correctly informed her the contract would end on 17th February 2020. In cross-examination she conceded the contract came to an end and she was not terminated due to theft. On that evidence the court held the issue of unfair termination did not arise, and claims for notice pay and 12 months' compensation failed.
Whether the Claimant was underpaid during the contract year
Yes - the court found she was underpaid by Kshs. 657.6775 per month for the contract year, totalling Kshs. 7,892
Applying the 2019 wages guidelines, a cook was entitled to Kshs. 14,658.85 plus 15% house allowance (Kshs. 2,198.8275), giving gross pay of Kshs. 16,857.6775. The Claimant received Kshs. 15,000 rising to Kshs. 16,000, both below the guideline figure, so the court awarded the shortfall of Kshs. 657.6775 per month for twelve months.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to service pay
The court awarded service pay of Kshs. 30,343.80 notwithstanding that the Claimant was an NSSF member
Although the Respondent argued that Section 35(5) of the Employment Act excludes service pay for NSSF members and the Claimant herself prayed that the service pay claim be dismissed on that ground, the court nonetheless awarded service pay computed at 15% of the guideline gross salary of Kshs. 16,857.6775 multiplied by 12. This appears inconsistent with the statutory exclusion both parties invoked.
Legal principles established
#- A fixed term contract lapses automatically on its expiry date and its non-renewal does not amount to unfair termination
- Fixed term contracts carry no rights, obligations or expectations beyond the date of expiry
- Service pay under Section 35(5) of the Employment Act is not payable to employees who are members of NSSF or a registered pension or provident fund
Court orders
#- 1.Respondent to pay the Claimant underpayment for the contract year of Kshs. 7,892
- 2.Respondent to pay the Claimant service pay of Kshs. 30,343.80, being 15% of Kshs. 16,857.6775 x 12
- 3.Total award of Kshs. 38,236/- less statutory deductions
- 4.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment and labour relations claim under the Employment Act (court's inherent employment jurisdiction; no specific constitutional provision stated)
Relief refused
#Compensation for unfair termination and pay in lieu of notice
The fixed term contract lapsed by effluxion of time; the letter of 6th February 2020 merely notified the Claimant of the contractual end date, and she conceded in cross-examination that her contract came to an end and she was not terminated for theft
Claim for underpayment as a casual worker (April-July 2018 and August 2018-February 2019)
No evidence was produced to show she worked for the Respondent in 2018; her MPESA statements did not show payments from the Respondent
Underpayment claimed at the figure of Kshs. 82,596 / Kshs. 182,350
Court computed a lower figure of Kshs. 7,892 based on the 2019 wages guidelines for a cook
Costs
The respondents should pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment.
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.
There is no indication that the claimant was bundled out of office before 17/2/2020 as the letter rightfully informed her of the end of her contract on 17/2/2020.
In fact, in cross-examination the claimant informed court that the contract came to an end and she was not terminated due to theft. The issue of unfair termination does not therefore arise.
If claimant was paid kshs 15,000/- and then kshs 16,000 it is true that she was underpaid in her contract year making her entitled to the balance of the amount for the one year = kshs 657.6775x12= Kshs 7892/-.
Total = Kshs 38,236/- less statutory deductions.
The respondents should pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency on service pay: the Respondent submitted and the Claimant conceded that service pay is not payable to NSSF members under Section 35(5) of the Employment Act, yet the court awarded service pay
Internal inconsistency on contract commencement date: the court states the contract took effect from 1st February 2019 while the pleaded and admitted commencement date is 18th February 2019
The court's underpayment computation is internally inconsistent: a monthly shortfall of Kshs. 657.6775 multiplied by 12 yields Kshs. 7,892.13, stated as Kshs 7892/-, but the service pay figure of Kshs 30,343.8 does not correspond to 15% of 16,857.6775 x 12 as expressed
The Respondent's submissions contain an apparent error referring to unfair dismissal while contending there was none, and the judgment text contains typographical defects (e.g. '219' for 2019)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogola v Strathmore University (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E060 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2173 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2173/eng@2025-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.