[2024] KEELRC 108 (KLR)

[2024] KEELRC 108 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimants were employed on renewable fixed-term contracts, which had been extended several times. The last extensions were for six months or until substantive recruitment, whichever came first. The Respondents revoked the contracts before either event occurred, without following the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELRC 108 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: David Kimutai Ngetich; Applicant: Sailas Omolloh Olang’O; Applicant: Paul Nguku Muthama; Respondent: Kenya Water Institute; Respondent: Director/Chief Executive Officer Kenya Water Institute; Respondent: Kenya Water Institute Governing Council; Respondent: Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Water, Sanitation And Irrigation; Respondent: The Hon Attorney General
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause E365 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Claimants' contracts were unlawfully and unfairly revoked; reinstatement denied; compensation and terminal benefits awarded.
Judges
MA Onyango
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Fixed Term Contracts, Legitimate Expectation, Employment Contracts, Remedies for Unlawful Termination
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Fixed Term Contracts Legitimate Expectation Employment Contracts Remedies for Unlawful Termination

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Kimutai Ngetich

Applicant

Sailas Omolloh Olang’O

Applicant

Paul Nguku Muthama

Applicant

Kenya Water Institute

Respondent

Director/Chief Executive Officer Kenya Water Institute

Respondent

Kenya Water Institute Governing Council

Respondent

Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Water, Sanitation And Irrigation

Respondent

The Hon Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the revocation of the Claimants' contracts was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimants were employed on renewable fixed-term contracts, which had been extended several times. The last extensions were for six months or until substantive recruitment, whichever came first. The Respondents revoked the contracts before either event occurred, without following the contractual or statutory procedures for termination, and without valid authority, as only the Governing Council had the power to terminate. The revocation was thus in breach of contract and the Employment Act. The Claimants had a legitimate expectation that their contracts would run their full course. Since reinstatement was not possible due to lapse of time, the court awarded...

Court Disposition

Claimants' contracts were unlawfully and unfairly revoked; reinstatement denied; compensation and terminal benefits awarded.

Orders

  • Each Claimant is awarded compensation equivalent to six months' gross monthly salary.
  • Each Claimant is awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice.