Omollo v Quintities East Africa Limited t/a Iqvia (Petition E121 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2919 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that an unsigned, unaccepted job offer creates no employment relationship, so withdrawing it is not unfair termination.
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 Petitioner was contractually employed by the Respondent
- 2.Whether the Petitioner had an agreement with the Respondent on an annual salary
- 3.Whether the Respondent could validly withdraw a contract of employment
- 4.Whether the Respondent's conduct amounted to a violation of the Petitioner's rights under Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution
- 5.What the appropriate remedies are
Key legal issues
#Whether a binding contract of employment existed between the petitioner and the respondent
No binding contract existed; the offer of 29 April 2020 was never accepted by signature and was withdrawn on 30 April 2020
The court traced the email exchanges culminating in the offer of 29 April 2020, which the petitioner was asked to sign and revert. There was no evidence the petitioner signed the offer; instead he made a counter-proposal on remuneration. The offer was withdrawn on 30 April 2020 after due diligence revealed the petitioner had misrepresented the reason for leaving his previous employment, so no enforceable employment relationship crystallised.
Whether the withdrawal of the employment contract amounted to unfair termination and violation of the petitioner's rights
Wrongful termination and breach of rights do not arise in the absence of an employment contract
Because the 1 April 2020 start date communicated by email was subject to due diligence, and due diligence negated the start of the contract, the respondent lawfully withdrew the offer. Without a contract sealed by signature, there was no termination to test against the Employment Act, and no violation of fair labour practices or fair administrative action was proved.
Whether the petitioner proved his claim to the required standard
The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof and the petition was dismissed
The court applied the standard of proof on a balance of probability and found the petitioner had not established a contract, an agreed salary of Kshs. 3,284,199, or constitutional violations. All the declaratory, reinstatement and damages reliefs consequently fell away.
Legal principles established
#- For an offer to be binding there must be intention to create legal relations, offer and acceptance, and agreement on essentials including remuneration, duration and start date; a contract of employment not signed or accepted cannot be enforced
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed
- 2.No order of costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Petition alleging violation of Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution; Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction
Relief refused
#Declarations of unfair labour practice, unlawful summary dismissal and violation of Articles 41 and 47
No employment contract was concluded; the offer was withdrawn before acceptance
General damages for summary dismissal and exemplary damages for constitutional violation
The petitioner failed to prove his claim to the required standard
Payment of full salary for the remaining contract period (Kshs. 3,284,199) and reinstatement
No employment relationship arose from the withdrawn contract of employment
Costs
There will be no order of costs.
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.
In essence there was no employment contract between the petitioner and respondent sealed through any signed contract capable of being enforced.
The issue of wrongful termination and a breach of the petitioners rights does not therefore arise.
The petitioner in my view fails below the standard of proof expected and is dismissed accordingly.
The petitioner in my view fails below the standard of proof expected and is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order of costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The court file/case number is not stated anywhere in the judgment; only the petition date (20th July 2020) appears.
The prayer list mixes reliefs referring to the petitioner as 'him' and later reliefs referring to 'her', suggesting the prayers were recycled from another pleading.
The prayers inconsistently cite 'Section 40 of the Employment Act and sections 2, 3[c], 4[3] and 4[4] of the Fair Administrative Act' in what is otherwise a declaration prayer, and refer to the Fair 'Administrative' Act without 'Action'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omollo v Quintities East Africa Limited t/a Iqvia (Petition E121 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2919 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 20th July 2020 (case number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2919/eng@2025-10-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.