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 judgment· [2025] KEELRC 2739 (KLR)

Muchoki v Mediheal Group of Hospitals (Cause E051 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2739 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 October 2025
MOM. ONYANGO
2,437 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Walking out without resigning cost this Kenyan nurse her entire claim for unfair termination, leaving only her Certificate of Service.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a nurse employed by the Respondent from 2018 at a monthly salary of Kshs 80,685, sued after leaving employment in December 2023, alleging that the Respondent's withholding of her salary from mid-2023 amounted to constructive dismissal. She sought declarations of unfair termination and unfair labour practice over 2 months' unpaid maternity leave, 12 months' compensation, salary arrears of 5 months, maternity leave salary, pay in lieu of notice, service pay, leave dues, exemplary damages of Kshs 1,000,000, and a certificate of service. The Respondent did not enter appearance or file a defence, and the suit proceeded undefended. The court framed two issues: whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed, and whether she was entitled to the reliefs sought. Applying the Court of Appeal's test in Coca Cola East & Central Africa Limited v Maria Kagai Lugaga, the court held that constructive dismissal requires the employee to terminate the employment in response to the employer's fundamental breach, ordinarily evidenced by a resignation letter citing that breach. The Claimant simply walked out without resigning, which was itself a breach of contract; both parties being in breach, no compensation lies. Constructive dismissal was accordingly not proved. Each head of relief was then assessed: the maternity leave, salary arrears, leave dues and compensation claims failed for want of evidence, and service pay was barred because the Claimant contributed to NSSF. The only relief granted was a Certificate of Service under Section 51(1) of the Employment Act. The claim was otherwise dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs and interest accruing at court rates from the date of judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether non-payment of salary amounted to constructive dismissal

Holding

No - the Claimant walked out without resigning, so constructive dismissal was not proved.

Reasoning

The court accepted that withheld salary is a repudiatory breach under the Coca Cola test and Section 17 of the Employment Act. However, constructive dismissal requires the employee to terminate employment in response to the employer's fundamental breach, ordinarily by resignation letter citing that breach. The Claimant neither pleaded nor proved resignation; her walking out was itself a breach of contract, and both parties being in breach, she cannot claim compensation.

p. 5
02

Entitlement to the reliefs sought

Holding

Only the Certificate of Service was awarded; all monetary and declaratory reliefs were refused for want of proof.

Reasoning

The claimant bore the burden of proving each head of claim. No evidence supported the maternity leave claim, the salary arrears (only an unrelated pay slip produced), leave dues, or compensation for unfair termination. Service pay was barred by NSSF contribution. Only the statutory Certificate of Service under Section 51(1) was established.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Constructive dismissal requires termination of employment by the employee on grounds of fundamental breach by the employer, ordinarily evidenced by a resignation letter citing the breach; walking out without resigning is itself a breach and bars compensation.
  • An employee who is a contributing member of NSSF is not entitled to service pay.
  • An employee is entitled to a Certificate of Service under Section 51(1) of the Employment Act regardless of the manner of exit.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed except for the prayer that the Respondent issue a Certificate of Service to the Claimant pursuant to Section 51(1) of the Employment Act 2007.
  2. 2.Each party shall bear its costs of this suit.
  3. 3.Interest shall accrue at court rates from date of judgment.
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Article 162(2) of the Constitution, as the ELRC); not expressly invoked in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muchoki v Mediheal Group of Hospitals (Cause E051 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2739 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2739/eng@2025-10-03

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