https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1855

Turgut v Southrift Hospital Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 1855 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1855 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2026 J Rika, J June 30, 2026 Between Gilbert Turgut Applicant and Southrift Hospital limited Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant filed this Miscellaneous Application dated 2nd March 2026. 2.It is founded on his affidavit, sworn on 2nd March 2026. 3.He explains that he was employed by the Respondent on a fixed-term contract, dated 1st August 2022. 4.He was contracted as a Hospital Administrator for 3 years. 5.Clause 17 of the contract required any disputes whatsoever, arising under the contract between the Parties, to be arbitrated, in accordance with the Arbitration Act No. 4 of 1995. 6.Arbitration would take place in Kericho, and would be conducted in English. 7.Clause 17.3 states that the Arbitrator’s award would be final and binding, and enforceable through the Courts. 8.The Respondent terminated the Claimant’s contract before it expired. The Claimant referred the dispute for arbitration, in accordance with the terms of the contract. 9.The Respondent did not participate in the arbitration. The Arbitrator delivered a final award, dated 9th June 2025. 10.The Arbitrator found termination was unfair and unlawful on account of both procedure and justification. The Applicant was awarded compensation, gratuity, and costs. 11.The Applicant seeks enforcement of the award. 12.The Respondent opposes the Application through the affidavit of its Chief Executive Officer, Danny Mwendwa, sworn on 15th April 2026. 13.Mwendwa explains that clause 10.2 of the contract allowed the Respondent to terminate the Applicant’s contract without notice, if he committed an act constituting grounds for summary dismissal. 14.He sexually harassed female staff, and recorded poor performance, warranting summary dismissal. 15.Parties were negotiating settlement, but the Claimant’s Advocates influenced the involvement of an Arbitrator. 16.The Respondent abandoned arbitration when the Arbitrator demanded to be paid a fee of Kshs. 200,000. 17.Mwendwa states further that arbitration was conducted outside Kericho. The Respondent rejected the appointment of the Arbitrator. The Respondent submits that the award was not obtained in accordance with the terms of the contract, and the Employment Act, and is therefore not enforceable. 18.Mwenda concludes his affidavit with the statement that the Respondent serves notice, that it would be seeking from the Court, an order for enlargement of time, to apply for the entire award to be set aside. 19.Parties agreed at the last mention on 22nd April 2026, to have the Application considered and determined, on the strength of their affidavits and submissions. The Court Finds: - 20.What is due for consideration is the enforcement of the arbitral award dated 9th June 2025, made by the Arbitrator George Mbaye. 21.The Respondent concedes through the affidavit of Danny Mwendwa, that it did not challenge the award, within the timelines given under the Arbitration Act. 22.Mwendwa also concedes that the Respondent participated in the arbitral process initially, but walked out when it considered the Arbitrator’s fee exorbitant. 23.There is no indication that the Respondent disputed the seat of the arbitration, at the time it submitted itself to arbitration. 24.The Respondent did not seek any intervention of the Court to assist the process of arbitration. It just walked away and kept silent. Even after the award was delivered, the Respondent did nothing, until encountered with this Application for enforcement. 25.There is no dispute that the Claimant’s contract of employment contained a valid arbitration clause, and that the Parties submitted the dispute to arbitration, with the Respondent walking out only after disputing the Arbitrator’s fee. 26.The issues concerning misdirection of the Arbitrator, on the Employment Act contained in the award, are matters that should properly have been canvassed through an application for setting aside of the award, which the Respondent failed to make. 27.The written statements concerning sexual harassment at the workplace, recorded by the Respondent from some of its staff members against the Applicant, were never presented at any disciplinary platform at the workplace, or before the Arbitrator. The makers of these statements were never called anywhere to give evidence. Their statements remain just allegations, mere statements, untested before any dispute resolution platform, and cannot stand in the way of enforcement of the award. 28.The Court does not have any ground, to decline enforcement of the award.It is ordered: -a.The arbitral award dated 9th June 2025, made by the Arbitrator George N. Mbaye, is adopted as a Judgment of the Court for enforcement.b.Costs to the Applicant. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT KERICHO, UNDER RULE 68[5] OF THE E&LRC[PROCEDURE] RULES, 2024, THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.JAMES RIKAJUDGE