Godfrey Ashiundu Shilibwa v Mediheal Group of Hospitals
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that locking an employee out of work and stopping pay counts as unfair termination, awarding the worker over Ksh. 924,000.
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 had an employment relationship
- 2.Whether the Respondent unfairly terminated the Claimant's contract of service by locking him out of the workplace
- 3.Whether the Claimant proved unpaid salary for September 2023 to January 2024
- 4.What remedies the Claimant is entitled to under sections 35, 36 and 49 of the Employment Act
Key legal issues
#Existence of employment relationship
The court was satisfied an employment relationship existed based on a salary revision letter dated 17th May 2021.
The Claimant tendered a document dated 17th May 2021 through which the Respondent revised his salary from 1st April 2021. The Respondent, having not entered appearance or filed a defence, did not controvert this evidence, and the court accepted it as proof of the employment relationship.
Constructive termination by lockout
The Respondent, through its actions and conduct, terminated the contract by locking the Claimant out of the workplace.
The Claimant testified that in January 2024 the Respondent's General Manager took the hospital keys and stopped reporting to work, preventing workers from accessing the hospital. Applying the repudiation principle, the court held the employee was entitled to treat the contract as terminated.
Unlawfulness of the termination
The termination was unlawful as no reasons were disclosed and no disciplinary hearing or lawful redundancy process was undertaken.
The record did not disclose why the Respondent discontinued the Claimant's services, and there was no evidence of a disciplinary hearing or lawful redundancy. The Respondent having not defended the suit, the uncontroverted evidence established unfair termination.
Accrued salary arrears
The Respondent failed to remunerate the Claimant for September 2023 to January 2024, and judgment was entered for Ksh. 420,000.00.
The Claimant's evidence that salary stopped from September 2023 until January 2024 was not controverted. At a monthly salary of Ksh. 84,000.00, the five months' accrued salary totalled Ksh. 420,000.00, for which judgment was entered.
Compensation and notice pay
The Claimant was awarded Ksh. 420,000.00 compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act and Ksh. 84,000.00 in lieu of notice under sections 35 and 36.
The contract having been unfairly terminated, compensation equivalent to five months' salary was awarded under section 49. As no notice was issued, one month's salary in lieu of notice was awarded under sections 35 and 36 of the Employment Act.
Legal principles established
#- An employer who locks an employee out of the workplace, stops assigning work and fails to pay salary repudiates the contract, entitling the employee to treat it as terminated.
- Termination without disclosed reasons, a disciplinary hearing or a lawful redundancy process is unlawful.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the parties had an employment relationship
- 2.Finding that the Respondent unlawfully terminated the employment relationship
- 3.Respondent to pay the Claimant Ksh. 420,000.00 being accrued salary for September, October, November and December 2023 and January 2024
- 4.Respondent to pay the Claimant Ksh. 420,000.00 compensation for unfair termination of his contract of service
- 5.Respondent to pay the Claimant Ksh. 84,000.00 being one month's salary in lieu of notice
- 6.Interest on the aforesaid amounts at court rates from the date of the judgment
- 7.Costs of the case to the Claimant
- 8.The award is subject to the statutory deductions applicable when the contract was terminated
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 employment and labour relations disputes (ELRC Cause No E577 of 2024)
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.
locks an employee out of the workplace; stops assigning the employee work; and fails to remunerate the employee his monthly salary, he will be deemed to have repudiated the contract of service between the parties
In the premises, the court finds that the Respondent unlawfully terminated the Claimant's services.
c) The court orders the Respondent to pay the Claimant the sum of Ksh. 420,000.00 being accrued salary for the months of September, October, November and December 2023 and January 2024.
d) The court orders the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation for unfair termination of his contract of service in the sum of Ksh. 420,000.00.
f) The court awards the Claimant interest on the aforesaid amounts at court rates from the date of this judgment.
h) The award to the Claimant is subject to the statutory deductions which were applicable when the contract between the parties was terminated.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment delivery date appears inconsistent with the cause number year
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Godfrey Ashiundu Shilibwa v Mediheal Group of Hospitals", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Cause No E577 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2782/eng@2026-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.