https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1840

Karuru & 5 others v Egerton University (Cause E035 of 2023) [2026] KEELRC 1840 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1840 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru Cause E035 of 2023 J Rika, J June 30, 2026 Between Ruben Karuru 1st Claimant John Mbagara 2nd Claimant Peter Wairigu 3rd Claimant Francis Nderitu 4th Claimant Alex Mwaura 5th Claimant Joseph Mwai 6th Claimant and Egerton University Respondent Judgment 1.The 6 Claimants filed a Statement of Claim, amended on 10th January 2025. 2.They aver that they were employed by the Respondent University as part-time Lecturers. They taught different subjects, including criminology, education, economics, statistics and international relations. 3.They were contracted to be paid hourly, at the rate of Kshs. 1,000. They lectured at the Respondent’s Nairobi Campus. 4.Their Claim, is that they were not paid their dues for services rendered. They were promised by the Director, Nairobi Campus that they would be paid their dues. The Director, Dr. L.N. Kinuthia, wrote to the Respondent’s Chancellor Academic Affairs, urging him to pay the Claimants’ dues. They were not paid. 5.Their contracts were never terminated. They did not resign, and considered themselves as continuing Employees of the Respondent. 6.They aver that they were subjected to unfair labour practices and discriminated against, being denied their dues, while some of their colleagues received theirs. 7.They aver that they are entitled to general damages for violation of their constitutional right to fair labour practices and the right not to be discriminated against. 8.Their respective claims are: -a.Reuben Karuru ...........Kshs. 270,000.b.John Mbagara ............ Kshs. 800,000.c.Peter Wairigu ...........Kshs. 1,642,500.d.Francis Nderitu ........ Kshs. 1,440,000.e.Alex Mwaura .......... Kshs. 1,170,000.f.Joseph Mwai........... Kshs. 3,240,000. 9.They invoke various domestic and international legal instruments, but without elaborating how some of the instruments apply to their situation. Some instruments are misnamed. The instruments listed are: the Constitution of Kenya; the Employment Act; the Labour Relations Act; the Fair Administrative Action Act; the Employment & Labour Relations Court Act; the Chief Justice Rules on Enforcement of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms; the Employment Court Rules, 2016; International Covenant on Economic and Cultural Rights; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; International Labour Organization on Termination of Employment Convention; African Charter on Human & Peoples Rights; and Public Sector Remuneration & Benefits Policy, May 2015. 10.Their prayers are: -a.Declaration that failure to pay outstanding dues was unlawful.b.Declaration that the Claimants’ right to fair labour practices has been breached.c.Declaration that their right to fair administrative action has been breached.d.Payment of the sums owed, detailed at paragraph 8 of this Judgment.e.General damages for breach of constitutional rights.f.General damages for psychological torture and mental anguish.g.Interest at court rates.h.Costs.i.Any other suitable order. 11.The Respondent filed its Statement of Response, dated 24th August 2023. It is denied that the Claimants were employed by the Respondent as part-time Lecturers. They were never subjected to unfair labour practices. 12.The legal instruments invoked by the Claimants have no relevance to their Claim. 13.The Claim is without basis, fatally defective, and in abuse of the process of the Court. 14.The Respondent urges the Court to dismiss the Claim. 15.The Claimants gave evidence on 22nd October 2025 and 10th February 2026, when they closed their case. Respondent’s Legal Officer, Janet Bii, gave evidence on 17th April 2026, closing the hearing. 16.The 1st Claimant Reuben Karuru, adopted his witness statement and documents, in his evidence-in-chief. He claims Kshs. 270,000. Cross-examined, he told the Court that he was engaged part-time as a Lecturer, from 2011. He taught 3 units in anthropology and 1 unit in social work. He did a total of 135 hours, at Kshs. 2,000 hourly. He was not paid for the period, September to December 2015. He last taught in 2015. There was no end date in his contract. The Nairobi Campus was shut down. He did not recall when. He submitted examination processing form, examination scripts, and schedule of payments through his supervisor. He did not sleep on his rights. He had been pursuing payment administratively, before coming to Court. Redirected, he told the Court that his students graduated, and he supplied the Respondent all documentation, to authenticate payment. 17.Julius Mbagara, the 2nd Claimant told the Court that he was employed by the Respondent as a part-time Lecturer, in 2012. He stated that his outstanding dues, were about Kshs. 900,000. 18.Cross-examined, he similarly took the position that he did not sleep on his rights. He last taught in 2017, and had been pursuing payment administratively, before approaching the Court. He availed the requisite documents with the examination claims form, to the Respondent. Nairobi Campus was closed around 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic. He was owed about 450 hours, at Kshs. 2,000 per hour. Redirected, he told the Court that the Director, Nairobi Campus, acknowledged debt, and wrote to the Respondent to pay. The 2nd Claimant told the Court that he never resigned, and closure of Nairobi Campus did not mean the University closed down. It is still operational at Njoro, Nakuru County. 19.The 3rd Claimant, Peter Wairigu, told the Court that he taught 5 units in computer. He is owed Kshs. 1,642,500. He submitted all the requisite documents with the examination claims forms. The Campus Director demanded for payments to no avail. 20.Cross-examined, he told the Court that he was engaged in 2012. He last worked in 2021. He worked over 810 hours. He taught master’s degree course for 45 hours, at Kshs. 2,500 hourly. Undergraduate degree courses were taught at Kshs. 2,000 hourly. Redirected, he told the Court that his students graduated. None came forward to deny that the 3rd Claimant did not teach. The Campus Director made demands on behalf of the Claimants, which were dishonoured. He did not have anything to do with opening and closure of Respondent’s campuses. 21.The 4th Claimant, Francis Nderitu, taught psychology. He is owed Kshs. 1,260,000. He submitted the claims documents. The Campus Director requested the Respondent to pay Claimants’ dues. There was no payment made. 22.Cross-examined, the 4th Claimant told the Court that he was employed in 2010, and considered himself still an Employee of the Respondent. He last taught in 2017. He was owed 630 hours. Each was remunerated at Kshs. 2,000. He was not informed that Nairobi Campus shut its doors. Redirected, he told the Court that the Respondent was continuously in breach of his rights. 23.The 5th Claimant Alex Mwaura, claims Kshs. 1,170,000. The Campus Director demanded for payment. The Claimants suffered discrimination and mental anguish. 24.Cross-examined, he told the Court that he was employed in 2012. Some Lecturers were paid, others were not. He was owed 585 hours, each at Kshs. 2,000. Redirected, he told the Court that valid claims forms were submitted to the Respondent for payment. Students sat examinations and were graded. The Claimants could not have submitted fictitious claims. 25.The 6th and last Claimant, Joseph Mwai, joined the Respondent in 2009. He, like his colleagues submitted claims forms which were not honoured. 26.Cross-examined, he told the Court that Nairobi Campus closed about 5 years back. He no longer teaches there. He taught 35 units that remained unpaid, at Kshs. 2,500 per hour. He was not able to say how many units were paid at Kshs. 2,000 per hour. The documents were verified by his Supervisor and forwarded to the Respondent at Njoro. Redirected, he told the Court that the dispute did not involve hours, but units taught. The closure of Nairobi Campus did not affect his Claim. Director Nairobi Campus wrote to the Respondent, confirming indebtedness. 27.Janet Chemtai Bii, the Respondent’s Legal Officer relied on her witness statement, and documents filed by the Respondent, in particular one referenced ‘schedule of payments,’ in her evidence-in-chief. 28.Her evidence was honest and straight forward. She conceded that the Claimants were employed by the Respondent as part-time Lecturers. She admitted that they are owed remuneration in arrears, but disputed the amounts claimed. 29.According to her, the 1st Claimant Reuben Karuru is owed Kshs. 180,000; the 2nd Claimant John Mbagara is owed Kshs. 498,380; the 3rd Claimant Peter Wairigu is owed Kshs. 567,040; the 4th Claimant Francis Nderitu is owed Kshs. 900,000; the 5th Claimant Alex Mwaura, is owed Kshs. 846,000 ; while the last Claimant Joseph Mwai, is owed Kshs. 778, 050. 30.Bii denied that the Respondent discriminated against the Claimants, explaining that the Respondent experienced financial difficulties, due to underfunding from the Government, making it hard for the Respondent to meet its financial obligations. The Nairobi Campus where the Claimants taught, shut its doors in 2021, on account of these financial difficulties. 31.Cross-examined, she told the Court that she is familiar with both legal and financial matters concerning the Respondent. It is within public knowledge that the University has pending bills in the tune of Kshs. 9.2 billion. She exhibited a statement showing what is owed. Her figures are not mere bubbles. The Respondent does not deny that the Claimants taught. It was not an issue of unfair labour practice, but inability to pay, occasioned by underfunding. Even current Employees such as Bii, are affected. Payment was being made based on the respective age of the debt. Redirected, she told the Court that Nairobi Campus closed in 2020. It is possible that some Claimants, taught from as early as 2013 as pleaded. 32.The issues are, whether the Claimants were Employees of the Respondent; whether they still are in employment; whether they are owed remuneration claimed; whether their constitutional rights have been violated; and whether they merit the remedies sought. The Court Finds: - 33.Although the Respondent appears to deny employing the Claimants in the Statement of Response, the Legal Officer Janet Bii admitted that all the Claimants were employed by the Respondent as part-time Lecturers as pleaded. 34.Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative. The Claimants were Employees of the Respondent. 35.Issue No.2 cannot be in the affirmative, as proposed by the Claimants. They describe themselves to have been employed as part-timers. They were paid on hourly basis, and not paid a monthly salary. They were not regular Employees, and did not establish before the Court that they are still offering part-time lecturing, at the Respondent. 36.It is common ground that the Nairobi Campus, where they all taught, closed its doors about 5 years ago. Where would the Claimants still be teaching at? None suggested that he was recruited to continue teaching part-time at Njoro or any other Institution associated with the Respondent, after closure of Nairobi Campus. 37.Most of them told the Court that they last taught, years before the Nairobi Campus was closed. 38.It was not necessary that they tender their resignation, or that their contracts were formally terminated, for them to cease to be Employees of the Respondent. 39.They were effectively piece-rate Employees, paid in accordance with the units [or academic piece-work] covered. They were not paid salaries at the end of the month, and it was not necessary for them to resign, or be dismissed, to end the employment relationship. 40.The employment relationship ended on the completion of each piece-work. It was not a continuous relationship, that could be deemed to be still alive, years after the Claimants finished teaching their units, upon which their respective claims rest, and years after their workplace shut down. 41.The finding of the Court on issue No. 2, is that the Claimants are not still Employees of the Respondent. 42.Issue No. 3 was well answered by Legal Officer Janet Bii, in her evidence. Remuneration is owed to the Claimants. The Respondent does not agree with the computations advanced by the Claimants, but advances its own computations of the amounts owed. The answer to issue No. 3, is that the Respondent owes the Claimants their part-time lecturing dues, but the amounts are not agreed. 43.Issue No. 4 on violation of constitutional rights, including the right to fair labour practices and the right not to be discriminated against, is in the affirmative. 44.The Claimants’ dues were acknowledged around 2018 by the Nairobi Campus Director. He wrote a letter, collectively interceding for the Claimants, urging the Respondent to pay up their dues. 45.There is an honest admission by Legal Officer Bii, that the dues were not paid. Her explanation that the Respondent experienced financial constraints due to lack of capitation from the Government, and that debt was being liquidated according to its age, is financially sound. 46.This explanation has been consistent in other disputes involving Lecturers of the Respondent on non-payment of dues, such as Nakuru Cause No. E023 of 2025, Dr. Owen Ngumi Ndung’u v. Egerton University; and Cause No. 224 of 2017, Peter Wangai Kiama v. Egerton University. 47.In the former, the Respondent admitted indebtedness to the Claimant, and the Court offered the view that rather than prolong the dispute through litigation, the Respondent ought to have compromised, and proposed a mode of settlement, cognisant of its limited revenue streams. 48.In the latter decision involving Professor Peter Kiama, the Respondent had actually admitted indebtedness and entered into an agreement on instalment payments. 49.The underfunding of Public Universities by the Government, their inability to meet their financial obligations, is public knowledge, as stated by Janet Bii. 50.It is a financially sound explanation, but is nonetheless legally, and constitutionally unsound. Employees’ remuneration is protected under Sections 17 and 18 of the Employment Act. It must be paid when it falls due. If the Employer is broke, it must consult the Employee, and agree on a reasonable payment plan. 51.Delay for over 7 years is a statutory offence and an unfair labour practice, under Article 41 of the Constitution. 52.The payment of remuneration in arrears to various Employees, based on the age of their claims, without consulting the Claimants, simply means that the Claimants have been subjected to workplace discrimination. Some of their colleagues were paid their dues, when the Director Nairobi Campus put in demands. The Respondent concedes that the payment is being selectively done, by looking at the age of the debt. 53.The Lecturers were equals, and under Article 27 of the Constitution, merited full and equal enjoyment of the right of remuneration, for work of equal value. They were entitled to fair remuneration and fair labour practices, under Article 41. 54.The underfunding of the Respondent by the Government has resulted in breach of statutory and constitutional nature to the Claimants, which merits redress. 55.The last issue No.5, is partly to be answered in the affirmative. 56.It was for the Claimants to establish the amounts claimed, through evidence. The Court was left unconvinced, by the evidence adduced by the respective Claimants on the hours taught. There was no adequate documentation capturing dates, hours and units taught, clearly explained by the Claimants in their evidence. They were not coherent in detailing the figures claimed. It is true that they filed documents such as attendance sheets, payment schedules, and examination processing forms. 57.But the difficulty the Court has, is in breaking down the data in these documents, and using that data, to support the specific figures advanced by the Claimants, as the totality of their dues. 58.It is the responsibility of a party who wishes to rely on certain documents, to break down the information contained in those documents to the Court, and show how that information, founds specific amounts of money claimed. None of the Claimants broke his documents down for the Court to adopt the sums claimed. 59.It is also noted that although the Respondent admits indebtedness, the Claimants appear to have delayed filing of the Claim, from the dates they last lectured at Nairobi Campus. 60.Such delay has not been punished by foreclosing the Claims under Section 89 of the Employment Act, the continued promises made by the Respondent to pay, being deemed to have renewed the causes of action. Delay however was not properly explained by the Claimants, and had the effect of blurring their memories on contested issues. 61.The figures exhibited by Janet Bii appear credible. The schedule of outstanding dues, filed by the Respondent, in the list dated 8th February 2024 is comprehensive. It captures debts owed to Lecturers, including the Claimants, as of 30th June 2023. The Claimants made no comment about the schedule, in their evidence. It is a clear document, clearly presented by the witness for the Respondent, and the figures proposed, shall be adopted as the figures owed to the respective Claimants. 62.On remedies therefore, the Court declares that non-payment of the Claimants’ dues by the Respondent, is unlawful; it is in violation of their right to fair labour practices and right not to be discriminated; they shall be paid by the Respondent general damages for these violations at Kshs. 100,000 each; they shall be paid the sums tabulated by the Respondent in its schedule of outstanding payments; they shall be paid interest at court rate, from the date of Judgment till payment is made in full; and there shall be no order on the costs.IN Sum, It Is Ordered: -a.It is declared that non-payment of the Claimants’ dues, is unlawful, and in violation of the Claimants’ constitutional right to fair labour practices and right not to be discriminated against at the workplace.b.The Respondent shall pay to each Claimant Kshs. 100,000 in general damages for these violations.c.The Respondent shall pay outstanding dues to-I.1st Claimant, Reuben Karuru... Kshs. 180,000.II.2nd Claimant, John Mbagara...Kshs. 498,380.III.3rd Claimant, Peter Wairigu...Kshs. 567,040.IV.4th Claimant, Francis Nderitu,... Kshs. 900,000.V.5th Claimant, Alex Mwaura,... Kshs. 846,000.VI.6th Claimant, Joseph Mwai, ... Kshs. 778,050.d.Interest awarded to the Claimants at court rate, from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full.e.No order on the costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, UNDER RULE 68 [5] OF THE E&LRC [PROCEDURE] RULES, 2024, THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.JAMES RIKAJUDGE