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 2745 (KLR)

Monari v Mediheal Group of Hospitals (Cause E047 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2745 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 October 2025
MOM. Onyango
2,309 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

#

A Kenyan court ruled that walking out of a job isn't constructive dismissal unless you formally resign citing your employer's breach.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
In an undefended claim, the Claimant, a medical doctor employed at a monthly salary of Kshs 250,434, alleged that the Respondent withheld his salary from July/August 2023 and that he left employment in December 2023, claiming constructive dismissal, compensation of 12 months' salary, salary arrears, notice pay, service pay, leave dues and a certificate of service. The Respondent did not file a response or attend court, and the suit proceeded undefended. The court framed two issues: whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed, and whether he was entitled to the reliefs sought. Relying on Black's Law Dictionary, the Coca Cola test (the unreasonableness and contractual/repudiatory breach interpretations) and Kenyan authorities on non-payment of salary, the court held that constructive dismissal requires the employee to terminate employment in response to the employer's breach of a fundamental term, typically evidenced by a resignation letter citing the breach. The Claimant neither pleaded nor proved any resignation or termination; he simply walked out, himself breaching the contract. Both parties being in breach, no compensation could be claimed. On the reliefs, the court reiterated that an undefended claimant still bears the burden of proving every element: the declaration, compensation, notice pay and salary arrears (evidenced only by a June 2022 payslip) all failed; service pay was unavailable because the Claimant contributed to NSSF; and leave dues lacked evidential support. The sole success was the statutory entitlement to a certificate of service under section 51(1) of the Employment Act. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed

Holding

No. Constructive dismissal was not proved because the Claimant never resigned; he merely walked out of employment.

Reasoning

The court adopted Black's Law Dictionary and the Coca Cola test (unreasonableness and contractual/repudiatory breach tests). It held that constructive dismissal requires the employee to terminate employment on grounds of the employer's breach of a fundamental term, evidenced by a resignation letter citing the breach. The Claimant neither pleaded nor proved a resignation or termination; by walking out he himself breached the contract, so both parties were in breach and no compensation lies.

p. 5
02

Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought

Holding

Claim failed except for the certificate of service.

Reasoning

The court applied the undefended-suit burden rule: the claimant must prove every element. Having failed to prove constructive dismissal or unfair termination, the declarations, compensation, notice pay and arrears fell away. Arrears were not proved on the evidence (only a June 2022 payslip); service pay was barred by NSSF contribution; leave dues lacked evidential support. Only the statutory certificate of service under section 51(1) was granted.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Constructive dismissal requires termination by the employee on grounds of the employer's breach of a fundamental term, typically evidenced by a resignation letter citing the breach.
  • A party in breach of contract cannot claim compensation from the other party who is also in breach.
  • In an undefended suit the claimant bears the burden of proving every element of the claim.
  • An employee who is a contributing member of NSSF is not entitled to service pay.
  • Every employee is entitled to a certificate of service under section 51(1) of the Employment Act.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's entire claim fails with the exception of the prayer for a certificate of service.
  2. 2.The Claimant is entitled to be issued with a Certificate of Service pursuant to Section 51(1) of the Employment Act, 2007.
  3. 3.Each party shall bear its own costs of the suit.
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 41 of the Constitution and the Employment Act, 2007 (first-instance ELRC employment claim)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Monari v Mediheal Group of Hospitals (Cause E047 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2745 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2745/eng@2025-10-03

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