Tuluba v GA Insurance Limited (Cause E735 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2950 (KLR)
The bottom line
#GA Insurance must pay a former employee Kshs. 379,750 after a Kenyan court ruled that ignoring her workplace grievances forced her unfair resignation.
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 parties were in a contract of service and in what positions the claimant served
- 2.How and when the contract of service was terminated
- 3.Whether the claimant was unfairly and constructively terminated
- 4.What remedies, if any, the claimant and the respondent on counterclaim are entitled to
Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant held the position of Head of Marketing and Communications Unit at Grade 6
No promotional contract to that position was ever entered; the claimant served as Digital Marketing Officer Grade 4 throughout the contested period
The claimant's own testimony conceded there was no such role, no organisation chart and no documentation of the alleged promotion. Email correspondence showed she worked as a Digital Marketing Officer from January 2019, negotiating over job title, salary and job description, with her grievance unresolved at resignation.
Whether the resignation amounted to unfair constructive termination
Yes; the resignation agreement, by its accepted terms, amounted to the claimant's unfair constructive termination
The respondent accepted the resignation without contesting the stated reasons of harassment, witch hunt and demotion, which bound it. Evidence showed a long-standing well-founded grievance over designation, salary and job description that was never genuinely addressed, plus withdrawal of email access without a suspension notice during a disciplinary process, constituting an intolerable environment.
Burden of proof in constructive dismissal
The burden lies on the employee, applying Coca Cola East & Central Africa Ltd v Maria Kagai Ligaga; the claimant discharged it on the established facts
The Court of Appeal authority requires the employer's conduct, viewed objectively, to amount to a repudiatory and fundamental breach. The Court found the claimant's grievances had not been resolved for a long time and were recurring, and that the respondent accepted her terms of resignation, confirming the intolerable environment.
Remedies payable for unfair constructive termination
Eight months' gross salary at Kshs. 60,000 per month less set-off of Kshs. 180,250 owed to the respondent, netting Kshs. 379,750
The aggravating factor was the long-standing grievance over designation, salary and job description; mitigation was the disciplinary warning and the admitted lack of courtesy to the CEO. Special claims failed for want of proof, and the loan and notice payments were admitted, justifying set-off.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employer accepts a resignation letter which sets out stated grounds, the reasons in the resignation agreement bind the parties
- Courts will not re-write contracts; parties are bound by the terms of their contracts
- Unaddressed well-founded grievances over a long period can amount to an intolerable working environment supporting unfair constructive termination
- Service pay, overtime and leave claims are special claims to be particularised and strictly proved
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the termination of employment amounted to unfair labour practices
- 2.Respondent to pay the claimant Kshs. 379,750.00 by 15.12.2025, failing which interest at Court rates from the date of judgment till full payment
- 3.Respondent to deliver to the claimant within 30 days a proper certificate of service showing she served as Internal Audit Assistant Officer Grade 3 from 03.01.2017 to 15.01.2019 and as Digital Marketing Officer Grade 4 until 04.05.2022
- 4.Each party to bear own costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over disputes arising from employment (Employment Act 2007; contract of service dispute)
Relief refused
#Claim for underpayment/house allowance (Kshs. 2,400,000 + Kshs. 800,000 + Kshs. 600,000)
No promotion to Grade 6 was established; claimant served as Digital Marketing Officer Grade 4 throughout
Service pay, overtime and accrued leave claims
Special claims to be particularised and strictly proved; not established; service pay barred as claimant was a member of the pension scheme and NSSF
Claim for bonus and cash allowances
Contractual basis and computation not shown
One month's pay in lieu of notice
Claimant agreed in the resignation agreement to pay a month's salary in lieu of notice
General damages and punitive damages for harassment
Circumstances taken into account as aggravating factors in the compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the suit
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 conclusion the court enters judgment for the parties with orders as follows: 1. The declaration the termination of employment herein amounted to unfair labour practices. 2. The respondent to pay the claimant a sum of Kshs. 379, 750.00 by 15.12.2025 failing interest to run thereon at Court rates from the date of this judgment till full payment.
The Court returns that the resignation agreement by its terms amounted to the claimant’s unfair constructive termination.
The circumlocutive conduct by the respondent over a long period of time in failing to genuinely address the grievance, in the considered opinion of the Court, amounted to extremely intolerable working environment.
Each party to bear own costs of the suit.
The respondent to deliver to the claimant, within 30 days from today, the proper certificate of service showing she served the respondent as an Internal Audit Assistant Oficer Grade 3 from 03.01.2017 to 15.01.2019 when she redesignated to Digital Marketing Oficer Grade 4 until they separated on 04.05.2022.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states the claimant reported on duty from 03.01.2012, contradicting the appointment date of 19.12.2016 with commencement on 03.01.2017
Award arithmetic inconsistency: 8 months at Kshs. 60,000 per month is stated as Kshs. 560,000.00 rather than Kshs. 480,000.00
Remedies paragraph states the claimant was awarded Kshs. 560,000.00 while the ordered payment is Kshs. 379,750.00 after set-off of Kshs. 180,250.00, implying a gross figure inconsistent with the 8-month computation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tuluba v GA Insurance Limited (Cause E735 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2950 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (memorandum of claim dated 29.06.2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2950/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.