Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No. E891 of 2023· [2026] KEELRC 2703 (KLR)

Ruth Wanjiru Ngobia v Action Against Hunger

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Nairobi
25 September 2026
3,041 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that firing a probationary employee without following the contract's notice and evaluation terms was unfair, awarding her over Kshs.642,000.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed on 20th June 2023 on a one-year fixed-term contract with a 3-month probationary period at a gross monthly salary of Kshs.142,809.30, was terminated on 24th August 2023, about two months into probation, after allegations that she accessed and deleted restricted HR folders from the Respondent's NHF Database. She sued for one month's notice pay, twelve months' compensation for unlawful termination, interest, costs and a certificate of service. The Respondent defended the termination as lawful, citing her written admission and a disciplinary hearing held on 22nd August 2023. The court framed two issues: whether the termination was unlawful and unfair, and whether the reliefs were deserved. It held that Clause 7 of the contract required a performance evaluation at the end of probation and 14 days' notice for termination during probation, and that the Respondent had wrongly invoked Section 41 instead of complying with the mandatory Section 42(1) and (4) of the Employment Act. The allegations were not proved: the Claimant had authorised access, the HR folder was not restricted, and RW-1 conceded an ICT error and the absence of evidence of deletion. The termination was found procedurally and substantively unfair. Relying on Samuel G. Momanyi v Attorney General, where Section 45(3) was declared unconstitutional, the court awarded four months' salary (Kshs.571,237.2) as compensation and 14 days' notice pay (Kshs.71,404.65), declining the claimed one month's notice. The award is subject to PAYE, attracts interest at court rates, and the Respondent must issue a certificate of service within thirty days. The Claimant received costs; the claim otherwise partially succeeded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether termination of the probationary contract was lawful and fair

Holding

Termination was procedurally and substantively unfair, wrongful and unlawful.

Reasoning

The contract's Clause 7 required a performance evaluation at the end of the 3-month probation and 14 days' notice for termination during probation. The Respondent terminated 2 months into probation, ignored Clause 7, and purported to invoke Section 41, contrary to Section 42(1) and (4). No evaluation was done and the allegations of deleting restricted data were not proved; RW-1 conceded the ICT error and absence of evidence.

p. 16
02

Whether the Respondent proved a valid reason for termination

Holding

No valid reason was established; the allegation that the Claimant deleted restricted HR folders was not proved.

Reasoning

The Claimant had authorised log-in credentials, the HR folder was not password-protected or restricted, and RW-1 acknowledged an ICT error. RW-1 admitted screenshots showing deletion were not produced in court and that no evidence showed the Claimant deleted the folders. The Claimant's response used 'may have deleted', an admission of possibility, not certainty.

p. 16
03

Whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation for unfair termination despite only 2 months' service

Holding

Yes; the court awarded four months' salary as compensation, relying on the declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 45(3) in Momanyi.

Reasoning

Section 45(3) restricts unfair termination complaints to employees with at least thirteen months' service. The court, persuaded by Samuel G. Momanyi v Attorney General, held that the Claimant could complain of unfair termination despite short service, and awarded four months' salary considering the short service period and the unfairness.

p. 17

Legal principles established

#
  • Fairness of termination requires both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
  • Termination of a probationary contract must comply with Section 42(1) and (4) of the Employment Act and the contractual notice provisions, not Section 41.
  • An employee with less than thirteen months' continuous service cannot claim compensation for unfair termination under Section 45(3), per Momanyi v Attorney General.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Compensation for unfair termination of employment of Kshs.571,237.2 (four months' salary).
  2. 2.Payment in lieu of notice of Kshs.71,404.65 (14 days' salary).
  3. 3.Total award of Kshs.642,641.85 subject to PAYE tax deduction pursuant to Section 49(2) of the Employment Act.
  4. 4.Interest on the awarded sum at Court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full.
  5. 5.Respondent to issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service pursuant to Section 51 of the Employment Act within thirty days of the Judgment.
  6. 6.Claimant awarded costs of the suit.
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the Employment Act (unfair termination claim)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ruth Wanjiru Ngobia v Action Against Hunger", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E891 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2703/eng@2026-09-25

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