[2001] KECA 148 (KLR)

[2001] KECA 148 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent's employment could only be terminated in accordance with the contract, which required three months' notice or salary in lieu. The purported retrospective termination by the appellant without notice was wrongful. The respondent was entitled to salary up to the date of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KECA 148 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kenyatta University; Respondent: Julius Murungi Murianki
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 329 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; decree adjusted.
Legal Topics
Wrongful Termination, Employment Contracts, Notice Periods, Special Damages, Retirement Benefits
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Wrongful Termination Employment Contracts Notice Periods Special Damages Retirement Benefits

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenyatta University

Appellant

Julius Murungi Murianki

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the respondent's employment by the appellant was wrongful under the contract of service.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to damages beyond three months' salary in lieu of notice as per the employment contract.
  3. 3 Whether arrears of salary and retirement benefits constituted special damages that must be specifically pleaded and proved.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent's employment could only be terminated in accordance with the contract, which required three months' notice or salary in lieu. The purported retrospective termination by the appellant without notice was wrongful. The respondent was entitled to salary up to the date of proper termination (January 1992) and three months' salary in lieu of notice. The court found that while general damages were not recoverable, the arrears of salary and retirement benefits were pleaded and proved, and thus recoverable. The High Court's award was adjusted to reflect salary for 27 months (November 1989 to January 1992), three months' salary in lieu of notice, and...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; decree adjusted.

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent salary at Shs.10,000 per month from November 1989 to January 1992 (27 months, totaling Shs.270,000).
  • Appellant to pay respondent Shs.30,000 being salary for three months in lieu of notice.