Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 2360 (KLR)

Njaramba v Mombasa Water Supply & Sanitation Co. Limited (Cause E073 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2360 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
8 August 2025
MMM. MBARŨ
2,168 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenyan employers cannot rely on a contract's notice clause to fire staff without a fair hearing; this Mombasa company paid over Ksh. 4.9 million for that mistake.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant was employed by the respondent as managing director on a 3-year term contract effective 21 January 2019. On 30 July 2021, while on duty, he was served with a letter dated 29 July 2021 terminating his employment immediately, based on a resolution of the respondent's Board acting on a communication from the County Government of Mombasa indicating he had been nominated as County Executive Committee Member for Youth, Gender and Sports. The claimant was unaware of the letter, was never appointed to that position, and was not given notice or a hearing. He claimed notice pay, 12 months' compensation, unpaid salary for the unexpired 6 months of his contract, and costs. The respondent admitted the employment and contract but asserted it lawfully invoked clause 29 of the contract permitting termination on 3 months' notice or payment in lieu, and that all terminal dues had been paid in full. The court held that the Employment Act introduced a paradigm shift away from termination at will; sections 41, 43 and 45 are mandatory, and even where the contract allows termination with payment in lieu, substantive and procedural fairness must be observed. Reliance on a third party's letter without inviting the claimant to respond was devoid of due process, and payment of terminal dues did not cure the illegality. Judgment was entered for the claimant: declaration of unlawful and unfair termination, compensation of Ksh. 1,650,000 (3 months' gross salary instead of the 12 months sought), Ksh. 3,300,000 for the unexpired 6-month term, and costs. Notice pay was refused as already paid in full.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether contractual notice/payment-in-lieu clauses displace statutory fairness requirements

Holding

No - sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act are mandatory and override contractual termination clauses

Reasoning

The Employment Act introduced a paradigm shift away from employer termination at will, prescribing minimum terms, fair hearing and a duty to give reasons. The constitutional dispensation, through section 7 of the sixth schedule, requires the Act to be read to entrench fair labour practices. The respondent's invocation of clause 29 could not oust the statutory requirement of notice and hearing before termination.

p. 4
02

Whether termination based on a third party's communication without hearing the employee was fair

Holding

It was substantively and procedurally unfair; the claimant should have been invited to address the matter

Reasoning

The respondent relied solely on a letter from the Mombasa County Government regarding an alleged nomination to a CECM position. The claimant was unaware of the letter and was never appointed. Due process under the Act required the claimant to be invited to address the matter before termination; reliance on a third party's directive lacked both substantive and procedural fairness.

p. 4
03

Entitlement to the unexpired portion of a fixed-term contract

Holding

The claimant was awarded Ksh. 3,300,000 for the remaining 6 months of his 3-year contract

Reasoning

The claimant had served 2 years and 6 months of a 3-year term contract and was denied a fair chance to complete it. The court found the claim for the remaining balance of the unfulfilled contract a fair and legitimate expectation and justified the award of Ksh. 3,300,000 for the unexpired 6-month term.

p. 4
04

Appropriate compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act

Holding

3 months' gross salary (Ksh. 1,650,000) awarded as compensation in addition to the unexpired-term award

Reasoning

Under section 49(1) the court may award single or multiple reliefs based on the case, guided by pleadings and providing reasons for each award. The respondent, despite access to legal expertise, ignored procedures and the law; the claimant was at the peak of his career and unaware of the alleged nomination. Such blatant abuse of procedure should not be tolerated.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Even where the written contract allows termination with payment in lieu of notice, procedural and substantive fairness under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act remain mandatory
  • Payment of terminal dues does not cure non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Employment Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the employment was terminated unlawfully and unfairly
  2. 2.Compensation of Ksh. 1,650,000 (3 months' gross salary)
  3. 3.Ksh. 3,300,000 for the 6 months unexpired term of the contract
  4. 4.Costs of the suit to the claimant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsections 41, 43, 45, 49(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010section 7 of the Sixth Schedule

Cases cited (6)

  • Kenfreight (E.A.) Limited v Benson K. Nguti
    [2016] eKLR
  • International Planned Parenthood Federation v Pamela Ebot Arrey Efiom
    [2016] KECA 429 (KLR)
  • Gateway Marine Services Limited v Muia
    (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E010 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC
  • Ibrahim v Reliance Hospital Limited
    [2023] KEELRC 2539 (KLR)
  • Agatha Bugosi Said v Vegpro Kenya Limited
    [2014] KEELRC 1154 (KLR)
  • Kenya Ports Authority v Munyao & 4 others
    [2023] KESC 112 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Article 162(2) of the Constitution (employment and labour relations court); section 49 of the Employment Act invoked for remedies

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (3)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njaramba v Mombasa Water Supply & Sanitation Co. Limited (Cause E073 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2360 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2360/eng@2025-08-08

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.