Wanjohi v Laikipia University

10. The Respondent states that the Claim is statute-barred, an averment that was argued preliminarily, and declined in a ruling of the Court, dated 29th August 2025. The Court found that the Respondent did not exhibit documents, establishing that the Claim was time-barred, and none have been exhibited post the ruling. Nothing therefore turns on the issue of time-bar, in this Judgment. 11. The Respondent denies the claim that the Claimant has made several demands for payment, which were declined by the Respondent. The Respondent urges the Court to dismiss the Claim with costs. 12. The Claimant gave evidence, and rested her Claim, on 15th April 2026. Dr. Hezron Nyamwega, Respondent’s Registrar, gave evidence on 12th May 2026, closing the hearing. 13. The Claimant rearmed the contents of her Statement of Claim in her evidence-in-chief, relying further on her witness statement and documents [1-3]. 14. She emphasized that she completed lecturing and examination of students, as contracted. She submitted to the Respondent attendance sheets. She submitted claim forms. After Covid-19 period, she was told that the Respondent did not have the funds, to pay her debt. Some of her colleagues were paid. The Respondent deferred her payment, alleging that there was a mix-up in her documents. 15. Cross-examined, she told the Court that she was paid hourly. She submitted attendance sheets. She submitted all the required claims documents. She gave all the documents to the Respondent. She did not retain copies. She followed up payment, but did not have a document, showing follow-up. She lectured in continuity, 2015 -2020. 16. Redirected, she told the Court that every semester had its own letter of appointment. She submitted attendance sheets and examination results, to the Respondent. Students would not have graduated without results. 17. Dr. Nyamwega adopted his witness statement and documents led by the Respondent. He conrmed that the Claimant was employed as a part-time lecturer by the Respondent. Part-timers are issued letters of appointment. They have a time-table and attendance sheets. They participate in examination of students. All these documents are to be submitted in placing claims for payment. 18. Dr. Nyamwega told the Court that the Claimant’s exhibited letters of appointment, were not original. Other documents were omitted from her claims. It was not possible to tell how many hours she worked, to support the Claim in the sum of Kshs. 1,080,000. This amount cannot be justied on an appointment letter alone. 19. Cross-examined, he conrmed that all the appointment letters were issued to the Claimant by the Respondent. They show that she was employed as a part-time lecturer. Part-time lecturers were paid hourly, for work done. It was done after submission of grades. The appointment letter, attendance sheet, examination processing documents, must be availed to support the claims for payment. 20. Dr. Nyamwega was not able to say if there were any missing examination grades, from the units taught by the Claimant. Deans, handled issues of missing grades. Once grades were issued, it was evidence that teaching was undertaken. Once marks were submitted, payment ought to have been made. There was no other process. Payment could not be deferred to the next semester. 21. Redirected, Dr, Nyamwega told the Court that production of attendance sheets was necessary, to authenticate hours worked. 22. The issues are whether the Claimant is owed Kshs. 1,080,000 by the Respondent in unpaid remuneration; and whether the remedies claimed are merited. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2200/eng@2026-07-30 2

page 2 of 4

The Court Finds: 23. The Respondent concedes through the evidence of its Registrar Dr. Nyamwega, that the Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a part-time lecturer; that she was to be remunerated hourly; payment would be paid after submission of grades; and that, once grades were issued, it signied that teaching took place, with no need for further enquiry to justify payment. 24. There was no doubt that the Claimant taught, and graded her students. The Respondent alleged that some of her documents were mixed-up. Dr. Nyamwega was not able to say if there were any missing grades from the Claimant’s units. Deans would handle issues concerning missing grades. 25. There was no report from the Claimant’s faculty Dean, that any grades from the Claimant’s unit, were missing. Students taught by the Claimant graduated. Dr. Nyamwega told the Court that once grades were submitted, payments were made. There was no other process subsequently. Each semester heralded a fresh contract. The completed units were supposed to be paid for, at the end of each semester. 26. There was no communication from the Respondent to the Claimant, exhibited by the Respondent, alerting the Claimant that she had omitted certain documents from her claims, and calling on her to make up for the default. Her mind was not directed to any mix-up of her documents, and she was never required by the Respondent to assist in clearing up the mix-up. 27. An honest Employer would have asked its Employee to urgently assist in clearing the mix-up, and in availing missing documents, to facilitate settlement. The Respondent opted to stonewall for years. 28. The Respondent seems to have just conjured up reasons, to justify delay, and deny payment of the Claimant’s contracted hourly pay. 29. In most cases involving Universities, led by lecturers before this Court for unpaid remuneration, the standard reason for delaying or denying payment, has been the underfunding of Universities by the Government. [See Karuru & 5 Others v Egerton University [2026] KELRC 1840 [KLR]; and Ndung’u v Egerton University [2025] KEELRC 3728 [KLR] ]. Faced with such underfunding and nancial constraints, Universities ought to engage their unhappy lecturers constructively, make reasonable payment plans, instead of mounting spirited, and oftentimes technical objections, and stonewalling on the merit of these payments. 30. The Court is satised that the Claimant has established her Claim to the required standard. She was clear in her pleadings and evidence. The Respondent must honour its contractual obligations to her. 31. There is however no justication made by the Claimant, for an order of punitive damages. The Claimant said nothing about the prayer, in her evidence. It is Ordered: a. The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant her contracted lecturing dues, as tabulated in the Claim, at Kshs. 1,080,000. b. Costs to the Claimant. c. Interest granted at court rate, eective from the date of this Judgment, till payment in full. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, UNDER RULE 68[5] OF THE E & LRC [PROCEDURE] RULES, 2024, THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY 2026. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2200/eng@2026-07-30 3

page 3 of 4

JAMES RIKA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2200/eng@2026-07-30 4

page 4 of 4