https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1887

Wanyama & 4 others v Lugari National Constituency Development Fund Committee & 2 others (Cause E001 of 2023) [2026] KEELRC 1887 (KLR) (2 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1887 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kakamega Cause E001 of 2023 DN Nderitu, J July 2, 2026 Between William Ouma Wanyama 1st Claimant Wilson Ondego Injera 2nd Claimant Violet Jendeka Karani 3rd Claimant Ndiziah Moureen Musumba 4th Claimant Catherine Mwenesi Kilwake 5th Claimant and Lugari National Constituency Development Fund Committee 1st Respondent Perez Anyango 2nd Respondent National Government Constituencies Development Fund Board 3rd Respondent Judgment I. Introduction 1.Through Akolo Wanyanga & Company Advocates, the Claimants commenced these proceedings by way of a memorandum of claim dated 26th April 2023. The memorandum of claim was amended on 8th December 2023 and later re- amended and dated 4th November 2024. For ease of reference this last one shall be referenced as the memorandum of claim. The claimants are seeking for the following reliefs –a.A declaration that the Respondents' action for terminating the Claimants from employment was illegal, unlawful, unfair and inhuman;b.A twelve-month compensation for unlawful dismissal;c.payment for the remainder of the contract;d.one month's salary in lieu of notice;e.unpaid leave earned;f.unpaid public holidays;g.unpaid gratuity;h.certificates of service;i.punitive damages;j.interest and costs of the suit; andk.any such other or further relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to grant. 2.The memorandum of claim was accompanied with verifying affidavits sworn by each the Claimants, a list of witnesses dated 26th April 2023, the written statements by each of the claimants and the list of documents, all of even date, with copies of the listed documents attached. 3.The 1st and 2nd Respondents entered appearance through Okeyo Ochiel & Company Advocates and filed a memorandum of reply dated 20th July 2023. 4.The 3rd Respondent entered appearance through Ms. Sheila Tarus Advocate and filed the statement of response dated 10th June 2025, accompanied with the written statement of Duncan Emuron (RW2) dated 17th June 2025. 5.On 11th June 2025 the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a list of documents dated 10th June 2025 with copies of the listed documents attached. On 24th June 2025, they filed the written statement of the 2nd Respondent (RW1) of even date, a further list of documents dated 24th June 2025, with copies of the listed documents attached 6.The Claimants subsequently changed their legal representation from Akolo Wanyanga & Company Advocates to Ndunge Wanyama Law & Co. Advocates. 7.The cause came up in court for hearing on 11th June 2025 when the 5th Claimant (CW1) testified on her own behalf and on behalf of all the other Claimants and closed the Claimants’ case. However, CW1 was recalled to further testify on 14th October 2025 and continued on 29th October 2025 and then finally closed the Claimants’ case. The defence was heard on the same day with RW1 testifying for both the 1st and 2nd Respondents, while RW2 testified for the 3rd Respondent. The Respondents’ case was then closed. 8.Counsel for the parties addressed and summed up their respective clients’ cases by way of written submissions. Ms. Wanyama for the Claimants filed written submissions dated 15th December 2025, while Mr. Okeyo for the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed written submissions dated 27th January 2026. Ms Tarus for the 3rd Respondent filed written submissions dated 16th March 2026 II. The Claimants’ Case 9.The Claimants’ case is expressed in the memorandum of claim, the Claimants’ witness statements, the documents filed, the 5th Claimant’s oral testimony in court and, the written submissions by their Counsel. 10.In the memorandum of claim, it is pleaded that the Claimants were employed by the 1st Respondent on renewable three-year contracts in various capacities. The 1st Claimant, William Ouma Wanyama, was employed on 1st July 2021 as a Gardener earning a monthly gross salary of Kshs14,200/=. The 2nd Claimant, Wilson Ondego Injera, was employed on 5th April 2021 as a Records Management Officer at a monthly gross salary of Kshs25,892/=. The 3rd Claimant, Violet Jendeka Karani, was employed on 5th April 2021 as an Accounts Assistant earning Kshs28,523 per month in gross. The 4th Claimant, Ndiziah Moureen Musumba, was employed on 7th June 2021 as an Office Messenger at a monthly gross salary of Kshs20,200/=. The 5th Claimant, Catherine Mwenesi Kilwake, was employed on 5th April 2021 as a Clerical Officer earning a monthly gross salary of Kshs25,892/=. They aver that they diligently discharged their duties until 14th December 2022 when their employment was unlawfully terminated. 11.The Claimants contend that following the appointment of the 2nd Respondent as the Fund Manager, she embarked on a witch-hunt against them. They state that after serving with the 1st Respondent for only three days, the 2nd Respondent instructed them, on or about 14th December 2022, to hand over office keys and all property belonging to the 1st Respondent and immediately vacate their offices without assigning any reason for the directive. They maintain that they were not issued with notices of termination, they were not informed of the reasons for their dismissal, and they were denied an opportunity to be heard or represented before the decision of their dismissal was made. 12.The Claimants further aver that they were not paid their salaries for March 2023 or salary in lieu of notice. They reported the dispute to the police and subsequently to the Ministry of Labour. Although a conciliator invited the Respondents to conciliation meetings on several occasions, the Respondents failed to attend, prompting the conciliator to issue a certificate of unresolved dispute paving the way for the Claimants to institute these proceedings. They further state that after their dismissal, their positions were advertised and filled with new employees without notification. 13.The Claimants contend that the dismissals were unlawful, unfair and unjustified, violated the Constitution, the Employment Act, the principles of fair labour practices and natural justice, and were undertaken without due process or lawful justification. 14.The Claimants therefore seek declarations that the dismissals were illegal, unlawful, unfair and inhuman, and prays for the reliefs set out above. 15.In her testimony in court, CW1 reiterated the contents of the foregoing pleadings and her written statement dated 26th April 2023. She produced and adopted the documents in the Claimants’ list of documents as exhibits 1 to 5. 16.In cross-examination, CW1 stated that her contract was to run for three years expiring on 1st April 2024. She stated that the 2nd Respondent who was engaged by 1st Respondent as the Fund Manager, called the Claimants to a meeting on 14th December 2022, and informed them that their services were no longer needed. She testified that she was not recalled back to work and that the positions vacated by the Claimants were advertised and new persons employed. 17.In cross-examination, she conceded that she was not at work on 14th December 2022 when the 2nd Respondent called the Claimants for a meeting and that her salary for September 2022 was paid in October 2022. She confirmed that the salary arrears for four months were paid until February 2023, inclusive of the gratuity for one year were paid to all the Claimants. 18.She further stated that letters of termination were not served upon the Claimants and they only saw them in the documents filed in court by the Respondents. III. The 1St & 2Nd Respondents’ Case 19.In the memorandum of reply, the written witness statement and the oral testimony of RW1, the 1st and 2nd Respondents aver that the Claimants absconded duty from December 2022 following differences with the employer and that all efforts to reach them proved futile. 20.They further contend that during their employment, the Claimants engaged in misconduct including, registering a private company to undertake works for the employer, participating in procurement processes in conflict with their employment, compromising tender processes and quality standards, processing payments for incomplete or non-existent works, influencing payments before completion of works, taking away the employer's tools to their private residences, using the employer's property for personal purposes, repeated absenteeism and abscondment without notice, disregarding lawful instructions, and theft of the property of the employer. The Respondents state that despite warnings and disciplinary measures, the Claimants persisted in the misconduct, resulting in breakdown of the employment relationship. 21.The 1st and 2nd Respondents deny that the Claimants performed their duties diligently or that the 2nd Respondent instructed them to surrender office keys and vacate the offices. They maintain that it is the Claimants who abandoned their employment without notice, contrary to the terms of their contracts. They deny that the Claimants' positions were subsequently advertised and or filled without their knowledge. They also deny terminating the Claimants' or engaging in any unlawful acts against them and consequently deny liability for the reliefs sought. 22.The 1st and 2nd Respondents further deny having received any demand notice or notice of intention to sue. They pray that the cause be dismissed with costs. 23.In her testimony in court, RW1 reiterated the contents of the memorandum of reply and her written statement dated 24th June 2025. She produced and adopted the documents in the 1st and 2nd Respondents' lists of documents dated 10th June and 24th June 2025 as exhibits 1 to 13. 24.RW1 testified that the Claimants were absent from work when she began working for the 1st Respondent on 22nd November 2022 protesting for two months’ salary arrears for November and December, 2022. She testified that she had no authority to take any action against the Claimants as that authority was bestowed on management committee of the 1st Respondent that was gazetted on 16th December 2022 and started working on 22nd December 2022. She highlighted that the Claimants’ absenteeism had been drawn to the attention of the management committee, which proceeded to declare the claimants’ positions vacant. She stated that she did not fire the Claimants as she had no such powers. 25.In cross-examination RW1 conceded that the decision to dismiss the Claimants was made in January 2023 and the letters of termination of their contract were issued without any warning or notice. 26.RW1 admitted to having been contacted by the Director of Criminal Investigation (DCI) and the Police from Lumakanda Police station. She stated that the positions hitherto held by the Claimants were advertised on 2nd January 2023 before the Claimants were dismissed. She, however, stated that the Claimants were paid their gratuity for the period up to 30th January 2023 and salary arrears for the period from November 2022 to January 2023. 27.RW1 stated that the Claimants were obligated, in the first instance, to report a dispute to the Board established under the Constituency Development Fund Act before filing the claim in court. She stated that the letter from the labour officer was not served upon the1st and 2nd Respondents. She stated that the Claimants were invited to a disciplinary hearing but they could not be reached on phone. IV. The 3Rd Respondent’s Case 28.In the statement of response, it is pleaded that the 1st Respondent is established under Section 43 of the National Government Constituencies Development Fund Act while the 3rd Respondent is established under Section 14 of the Act. 29.The 3rd Respondent denied the entire claim and also raised a jurisdictional objection, contending that the action falls under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court because the Claimants' gross monthly salaries did not exceed Kshs80,000/=. 30.The 3rd Respondent maintains that it has been wrongly joined in the proceedings, contending that the Claimants have disclosed no cause of action against it. It therefore prays that its name be removed from the cause with costs. 31.In his testimony in court, RW2, a human resources manager, reiterated the contents of the foregoing pleadings and his written statement dated 17th June 2025. He stated that the claimants were employees of the 1st Respondent and that the 3rd Respondent had no role in that relationship whatsoever as it is a distinct legal entity from the 1st and 2nd Respondents. V. Submissions 32.The claimants’ Counsel submitted on six issues – Whether the Claimants had been employed by the Respondents; Which laws were applicable in this case in terms of dispute resolution; Whether the Claimants absconded duty; Whether the Claimants were unfairly terminated from employment; Whether the Claimants were entitled to the reliefs sought in the Memorandum of Claim; and, Who should bear the costs of this Claim. 33.It is submitted that the claimants were lawfully employed by the 1st Respondent under written renewable term contracts and served the Respondent for several years before their employment was terminated on 14th December 2022. They contend that the contracts produced as exhibits establish that the 1st Respondent was their employer, while the 2nd Respondent served as the Fund Manager. It is further submitted that the Court had previously determined the employer in its ruling on the preliminary objection, finding that the employment contracts created an employment relationship between the Claimants and the 1st Respondent. 34.It is submitted that the Claimants’ employment with the 1st Respondent was governed by the Employment Act and the terms of their written contracts. Counsel rejected the Respondents' contention that the NG-CDF Staff Rules governed the dispute, arguing that the contracts expressly subjected them to the Employment Act and applicable staff regulations. 35.On the allegation of abscondment, Counsel submitted that the Respondents failed to prove that the Claimants deserted duty. Counsel argued that after instructing the Claimants to leave the workplace, the Respondents made no genuine effort to recall them or subject them to disciplinary proceedings. Counsel cited George Ogembo, Employment Law Guide of Employers (2016) in support of the proposition that where an employee absconds duty, the employer must first make reasonable efforts to trace the employee and issue a show-cause notice/letter before termination. Counsel further cited Dickson Nyasi Muhaso v Milano Electronoics Limited (2021)eKLR and Godfrey Anjere v Unique Suppliers Ltd (2018) eKLR. In both decisions the Court held that an employer alleging abscondment must demonstrate reasonable efforts made to contact the employee and comply with procedural fairness before treating the employment as terminated. 36.It is further submitted that the claimants’ dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair. Counsel contends that the Claimants were not given reasons for the termination, they were not issued with show-cause notices/letters, they were not invited to disciplinary hearings and, they were not afforded an opportunity to be heard, contrary to Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. Counsel argued that the Respondents failed to establish valid and fair reasons for the termination and also did not comply with the mandatory procedural requirements prescribed by law. Citing Dickson Nyasi Muhaso v Milano Electronoics Limited(supra) and Peter Otabong Ekisa v County Government of Busia (2017) eKLR, Counsel submitted that once an employee establishes a prima facie case of unfair termination, the burden shifts to the employer to justify both the reasons for termination and the procedure adopted. 37.On remedies, it is submitted that the Claimants are entitled to compensation under Sections 49 & 50 of the Employment Act. It is submitted that some of the Claimants had served the Respondent for more than ten years and are therefore entitled to the maximum compensation awardable. It is further submitted that the Claimants are entitled to payment for the unexpired term of their contracts, one month's salary in lieu of notice, accrued leave, unpaid public holidays, unpaid gratuity, certificate of service, costs and interest. 38.In conclusion, Counsel urged the Court to find that the Respondents violated the Claimants’ constitutional right to fair labour practices and the statutory safeguards governing termination of employment by dismissing them without due process or lawful justification. Counsel prays that judgment be entered in facour of the claimants as prayed. 39.Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents submitted on three issues – Whether there exists an employer-employee relationship between the claimants and the 2nd Respondent; Whether the claimants have proved their claim to the required standard to warrant the grant of the Orders sought; and, Who is to settle the decree herein in the event that the claim is allowed. 40.Counsel submitted that the Claimants failed to prove their claim on a balance of probabilities and are therefore not entitled to the reliefs sought. Counsel contends that the Claimants failed to establish that they were unfairly and unlawfully terminated duty. It is submitted that no notice of termination was produced in evidence and that the allegation that the 2nd Respondent verbally dismissed the Claimants was unsupported, as only one witness testified on behalf of all the Claimants. Counsel further submitted that the Claimants absented themselves from work from December 2022 without notice, resumed briefly after salary issues were resolved, and thereafter abandoned their employment, leading the 1st Respondent to declare their positions vacant in February 2023. 41.On the liability of the 2nd Respondent, it is submitted that no employer–employee relationship existed between the Claimants and the 2nd Respondent. Citing the provisions of Section 2 of the Employment Act and the decision in County Assembly of Kisumu & 2 Others v Kisumu County Assembly Service Board & 6 Others [2015] eKLR, it is submitted that an employment relationship arises from a contract of service. Counsel argued that all the employment contracts were between the Claimants and the 1st Respondent and that the 2nd Respondent, as the Fund Manager, neither employed nor contracted the Claimants. 42.Further, citing Munyua v Aruasa & 3 Others [2024] KECA 1696, Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd v Aggrey Lukorito Wasike [2017] eKLR and Everret Aviation Ltd v Kenya Revenue Authority [2013] eKLR , it is submitted that the burden of proving the existence and identity of the employment relationship was with the Claimants and that supervision alone did not create an employment relationship. Counsel further cited Section 56(5) of the National Government Constituencies Development Fund Act, arguing that the 2nd Respondent enjoys statutory protection from personal liability for acts undertaken in her official capacity. 43.Regarding the alleged unfair termination, it is submitted that the Claimants failed to prove the foundational fact of termination. Counsel cited Kenneth Nyaga Mwige v Austin Kiguta & 2 Others (2015) eKLR on the principles governing proof of documentary evidence and Ratemo & 2 Others v Dufourg [2025] KECA 1359(KLR) on the principle that an employee must first establish a prima facie case of unfair termination before the burden shifts to the employer. Counsel argued that no documentary evidence of termination was produced and no independent witness was called to corroborate the alleged verbal dismissal. 44.Counsel further submitted that the Claimants absconded duty and that the employer was entitled to treat the employment contracts as repudiated. Citing Felistas Acheha Ikatwa v Charles Peter Otieno [2018] eKLR, Counsel argued that an employer cannot be faulted for treating a contract as repudiated where an employee deserts duty. It is submitted that the Claimants continued receiving salaries and gratuity despite being absent from duty. 45.Counsel argued that the Claimants failed to exhaust the dispute resolution mechanism provided under Section 56 of the National Government Constituencies Development Fund Act before approaching the Court. Counsel cited Geoffrey Muthinja & Another v Samuel Henry & 1756 Others [2015] eKLR on the principle that where a statute provides a dispute resolution mechanism, it must be exhausted before litigation is commenced. Counsel further cited Kenya Airways v Aviation & Allied Workers Union (2014)eKLR in support of the proposition that remedies cannot issue where the essential elements of employment and unfair termination have not been established. 46.On liability, it is submitted that the 1st and 2nd Respondents were sued in their official capacities under the National Government Constituencies Development Fund Act and have no independent funds. It is argued that any liability by the 1st Respondent is ultimately borne by the 3rd Respondent, pursuant to Section 58(3) of the Act. Counsel cited the ruling of 13th October 2023 (Keli J) to the effect that the Board was a necessary party for purposes of enforcement of any liability against the 1st Respondent. 47.In conclusion, Counsel urged the Court to find that the Claimants failed to prove termination, failed to establish liability against the 2nd Respondent, failed to exhaust the statutory dispute resolution mechanism and, failed to prove unfair termination. 48.Counsel for the 3rd Respondent submitted on two issues – Whether the claimants were employees of the 3rd Respondent, and, Whether the remedies sought can issue as against the 3rd Respondent. 49.It is submitted that the Claim against the 3rd Respondent is misconceived as no employer–employee relationship existed between it and the Claimants. It is argued that the Claimants themselves acknowledged that they were employees of the 1st Respondent and failed to adduce any evidence showing that the 3rd Respondent recruited, supervised, controlled, or remunerated them. It is further submitted that the contracts of employment produced in evidence indicate that the Claimants were engaged by the 1st Respondent a distinct statutory entity mandated under Section 45 of the National Government Constituencies Development Fund Act to recruit and remunerate its own staff from its budget. 50.It is further submitted that the burden of proving the existence of an employment relationship was with the Claimants. Counsel cited Sangura v Western Steel Mills Limited & Another [2025] KEELRC 2719 (KLR), wherein the Court held that a claimant must first adduce cogent evidence demonstrating the existence of an employment relationship. It is submitted that mere allegations without supporting evidence are insufficient in establishing employment. 51.Consequently, Counsel submitted that having failed to establish an employment relationship, the Claimants are not entitled to any of the remedies sought against the 3rd Respondent. Counsel therefore urged the Court to dismiss the claim against the 3rd Respondent with costs as the same was not proved. VI. Issues For Determination 52.The court has carefully and dutifully gone through the pleadings filed, the documentary and oral evidence tendered by the parties, and the written submissions by their respective counsel. The following issues are for determination –a.Who was the employer of the Claimants and is the 3rd Respondent properly joined in the cause?.b.Whether the Claimants were unfairly and unlawfully dismissed.c.Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought.d.Costs. VII. Joinder 53.Joinder or non-joinder of a party is not fatal to a cause. The court should determine liability as between all the parties named or joined in a cause. And that is what this court shall undertake in this cause. 54.The 3rd Respondent argued that it was wrongly sued as the contracts of service indicated that the Claimants were engaged by the 1st Respondent. RW2 testified that the 1st Respondent was the employer. Section 45 of the National Government Constituency Development Fund Act empowers the 1st Respondent to engage employees and remunerate them from funds allocated for recurrent expenses in the following –45.Staff of the Constituency Committee(1)The Constituency Committee may engage such staff as may be necessary for execution of its functions including persons with knowledge in information and communications technology, construction and basic accounting.(2)Staff employed under subsection (1) shall assist the Constituency Committee in project monitoring, evaluation, co-ordination and proper keeping of records and such staff shall be remunerated from the funds allocated for administration and recurrent expenses of the Constituency Committee. (Emphasis added) 55.The contract of service was drawn by the 1st Respondent. The 2nd Respondent is a fund Manager deployed to manage the fund under the 1st Respondent with the authority to incur expenditure. The 1st Respondent exists in perpetuity even during transition and the Fund Manager ensures continuity – See Section 43(9) of the Act). However, the 1st Respondent can be dissolved by the 3rd Respondent as contemplated under Section 44 of the Act. Moreover, it is the 3rd Respondent that selects the membership of the 1st Respondent and thus, in the event of dissolution, the 3rd Respondent would be responsible for the management of the 1st Respondent. 56.It follows thus that the 1st Respondent engages employees and remunerates them. The 3rd Respondent, through the 2nd Respondent (Fund Manager), manages all records and equipment of the particular constituency development fund. Clearly, the 1st Respondent is an independent legal entity from the 3rd Respondent with capacity to sue and being sued. The 3rd Respondent cannot be held liable in the circumstances. VIII. Dismissal 57.What constitutes valid reason(s) for terminating an employee and the procedure to be followed in terminating an employee are provided for under Sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act. Section 45(2) of the Act provides as follows –A termination of employment by an employer is unfair if the employer fails to prove –a.That the reason for termination is valid;b.That the reason for the termination is fair reason –i.Related to the employees conduct, capacity or compatibility; orii.Based on the operation requirements of the employer; andiii.That the employment was terminated in accordance with fair procedure. 58.Going by the evidence availed in this cause, there is no dispute that the Claimants were employees of the 1st Respondent. The evidence presented by the Claimants comfirm that they signed distinct contract as follows – the 1st Claimant was employed effective from 1st July 2021; the 2nd Claimant on 5th April 2021; the 3rd Claimant on 5th April 2021; the 4th Claimant on 7th June 2021; and the 5th Claimant on 5th April 2021. All the contracts were on a three-year term basis. 59.RW1 testified that the Claimants absconded duty and, subsequently, the 1st Respondent advertised their positions on 2nd January 2023 before their dismissal on 6th February 2023. RW1 claimed that efforts to contact the Claimants for a disciplinary hearing were futile as the Claimants could allegedly not be reached on phone. RW1 admitted that no disciplinary hearing was thus conducted. 60.The Claimants’ case is that they were directed by the 2nd Respondent to vacate their offices after a meeting on 14th December 2022. CW1 conceded that she was not at work on that material date. 61.There is neither no evidence on record that the Claimants were issued with show-cause letters or notices for their alleged absconding of duty nor evidence of an invitation to a disciplinary hearing. The Respondents ought to have followed the law in substance and procedure before terminating the Claimants – See Mary Chemwono V Kenya Pipeline Company Limited (2017) eKLR, Loice Otieno V Kenya Commercial Bank Limited (2013) eKLR, and, Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission (2012) eKLR. 62.In the circumstances, the court finds and holds that the 1st Respondent took a deliberate decision to dismiss the Claimants without due process, to the extent of advertising their positions prior to their dismissal. The 2nd Respondent was the chief architect in this illegal process. 63.Clearly and evidently, the dismissals were unfair and unlawful both in substance and form/procedure and the 1st Respondent shall and is hereby held liable through its agent, the 2nd Respondent. IX. Reliefs 51.Having found and held that the dismissal of the Claimants by the 1st Respondent as directed by the 2nd Respondent was wrongful, unfair, and unlawful for lack of both substantive and procedural fairness, the court shall now consider each of the reliefs sought as hereunder. 52.Prayer (i) is for a declaration that the action of terminating the Claimants from employment was illegal, unlawful, unfair and inhuman. The court has found and held that the Claimants’ dismissal was unfair and unlawful, and thus a declaration to that effect shall issue. 51.Prayer (ii) is for compensation for the unlawful dismissal under Section 49(1) of the Act. The Claimants were serving on three-year term contracts before dismissal. The 1st Claimant had worked for one year and seven months, the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Claimants had worked for one year and 10 months, while the 4th Claimant had worked for one year and eight months. 52.There is no evidence on record that the Claimants secured new employment upon dismissal. The court has considered all the factors provided for under Section 49 of the Act and finds and holds that this is an appropriate cause for the award of the maximum awards equivalent to 12 months’ gross salary. This is so because the court notes that each of the Claimants had well over 12 months left in their respective contracts. The awards are calculated as follows –a.1st claimant………Kshs14,200/= x 12….Kshs170,400/=b.2nd claimant…….Kshs25,892/= x 12….Kshs310,704/=c.3rd claimant…….Kshs28,523/= x 12….Kshs342,276/=d.4th claimant…….Kshs20,200/= x 12…Kshs242,400/=e.5th claimant ……Kshs25,892/= x 12…Kshs310,704/= 51.Prayer ( iii) is for payment for the remainder of the contracts. Pursuant to Section 17(1) of th Employment Act wages are only payable for work done. The court has already awarded to the Claimants compensation for wrongful, unfair, and unlawful dismissal above. In my considered view, further compensation for the unserved part of the contracts shall amount to double compensation. This shall be unfair and unlawful considering that the 1st Respondent is a public body funded by the taxpayer. 52.Prayer (iv) is for one month’s pay in lieu of notice. The notice of termination produced in court were issued on 6th February 2023. The notices indicated that the Claimants’ last day at work was 6th March 2023. CW1 conceded that the Claimants received salary for up to and including February 2023 despite having been away since 14th December 2022. The court finds and holds that the Claimants were therefore duly paid their salary in lieu of notice. 53.Prayers (v) and (vi) are for unpaid leave earned and unpaid public holidays respectively. There were no particulars pleaded on the two prayers. The court finds and holds that the same were not adequately pleaded and proved. 54.Prayer (vii) is for unpaid gratuity. No specific particulars for gratuity were pleaded on what was payable to each of the Claimants. The Claimants were each receiving different salaries. In her testimony in court, CW1 testified that she was paid gratuity for one year. While the contracts provided for gratuity at 22% of their annual basic salary under clause 8, this claim was neither specifically pleaded nor proved. In any event, if CW1 was paid her gratuity, the presumption is that all the Claimants were paid as well. 55.Prayer (viii) is for a certificate of service. Section 51 of the Employment Act provides that an employee shall be unconditionally issued with a certificate of service. The 1st Respondent shall issue each of the claimants with a certificate of service and serve the same upon their Counsel within 30 days from the date of this judgement. 56.Prayer (ix) is for punitive damages. The court finds and holds that there was no proof of violations of constitutional rights and hence the award in compensation is adequate in the circumstances. X. Costs 57.The Claimants are awarded costs of the cause. XI. Disposal/orders 58.For all the foregoing reasons, the court issues the following orders –a.A declaration be and is hereby issued that the dismissal of the claimants by the 1st respondent was wrongful, unfair, and unlawful.b.Each of the claimants is awarded as follows –i.1st claimant…………Kshs14,200/= x 12….Kshs170,400/=ii.2nd claimant……….Kshs25,892/= x 12…..Kshs310,704/=iii.3rd claimant……….Kshs28,523/= x 12….Kshs342,276/=iv.4th claimant……….Kshs20,200/= x 12….Kshs242,400/=v.5th claimant ………Kshs25,892/= x 12…Kshs310,704/=Total Kshs1,376,484/=c.The 1st Respondent through the 2nd Respondent shall issue and deliver to the Claimants, through their Counsel, certificates of service within 30 days of this judgment.d.The Claimants are awarded costs of the cause and interest on the amount awarded at court rates till payment in full. DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED, AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY 2026.……………………DAVID NDERITUJUDGEELRC KK.