Bukono v Kabarak University (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E203 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 399 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a signed 'full and final settlement' voucher bars an ex-employee from suing for more, even if the amount paid seems small.
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 termination of the claimant's fixed-term contract pursuant to clause 2.0 thereof was unfair, unlawful or a breach of contract
- 2.Whether the termination amounted to redundancy requiring compliance with sections 40 and 45 of the Employment Act
- 3.Whether the discharge voucher executed by the claimant bars him from making further claims against the respondent
- 4.Whether the claimant is entitled to the various monetary claims (notice pay, October salary, leave days, leave travelling allowance, gratuity, public holidays, salary for unexpired contract term, overtime, and compensation for unfair termination)
Key legal issues
#Nature of the termination of the fixed-term contract
The termination was a lawful contractual termination under clause 2.0, not a dismissal and not a redundancy; there was no substantive or procedural unfairness
The claimant was engaged on a written fixed-term contract running from 01/11/2021 to 31/10/2024, whose clause 2.0 expressly permitted termination before expiry by three months' notice or payment in lieu. The respondent invoked that clause and paid notice pay plus accrued dues. No position was abolished and no severance was computed, so section 40 redundancy provisions were not triggered. The court found no unfairness either substantial or procedural.
Effect of the discharge voucher
The voluntarily executed discharge voucher acknowledging Kshs. 92,462.80 in full and final settlement binds the claimant and bars all further claims, regardless of adequacy of the amount
Applying Coastal Bottlers v Mithika and Thomas De La Rue v Omutelema, the court examined the import of the voucher and the voluntariness of its execution. The claimant admitted signing it, reading and understanding the 'full and final settlement' clause, and was not coerced; he never denied signing or questioned its veracity, and no misrepresentation or incapacity was discerned. It was therefore a binding contract giving effect to the parties' intention.
Consequence of the settlement on the suit
Having waived his rights by the discharge voucher, the claimant cannot maintain this suit, which was dismissed in its entirety
Because the court was bound to give effect to the parties' settlement, it could not entertain the claims. The court also found the remaining monetary claims (overtime, leave travelling allowance, gratuity, public holidays, unexpired-term salary, statutory compensation) unavailable since the contract was contractually terminated with payment in lieu of notice made per clause 2.0 and the discharge voucher.
Legal principles established
#- A discharge voucher voluntarily executed and free of misrepresentation, fraud or incapacity is a binding contract that bars further claims arising from the employment relationship
- Whether a discharge voucher bars further claims depends on the import of the agreement and whether it was voluntarily executed
- Employment in Kenya is governed by the general law of contract as much as by the Employment Act and related statutes
- Courts must enforce and give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in their agreement
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.The claimant to pay 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 jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a claim for unfair termination and breach of employment contract (Employment Act, Sections 35, 36, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49(1)(c), 10(7), 74)
Relief refused
#3 months' salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 77,046.00)
Notice pay was paid and the discharge voucher covering it was voluntarily executed
Unpaid salary for October 2022, 61 pending leave days, leave travelling allowance, gratuity, unpaid public holidays, salary for remainder of fixed-term contract, overtime pay, and 12 months' compensation for unfair termination
The claim was barred by the binding settlement in the discharge voucher, and there was no unfairness as the fixed-term contract was lawfully terminated per clause 2.0
Costs of the suit and interest
Claim dismissed with costs to the respondent
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the respondent (claim dismissed in its entirety with 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.
find that the claim has no merit and is hereby dismissed it in its entirety with costs
the parties had agreed that payment of the amount stated in the settlement clause would absolve the Respondent from any further claims under the contract of employment and even in relation to the claimant's termination
This was therefore not a case of a dismissal, summarily or otherwise, as claimed by the claimant. It was also not an act of redundancy as claimed.
It did not matter that the amount thereunder would be deemed as inadequate. As it stood, the agreement was a binding contract between the parties.
the claimant had waived his rights to make any further claim in relation to his relationship with the respondent
Whether or not a discharge voucher bars a party thereto from making further claims depends on the circumstances of each case.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's date of delivery appears as 29th July 2026, which post-dates the cause number of 2025 and is unusually far in the future relative to the filing; recorded as printed
The claimant pleaded the termination letter as dated 21/10/2022, while the letter itself states effect from 1st November 2022 with last date of service 31st October 2022 - internally consistent but worth noting the notice covered only the period to 31/10/2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bukono v Kabarak University (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E203 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 399 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). MC ELRC Cause No. E203 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/399/eng@2026-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.