https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1583

Weere v National Syndemic Diseases Control Council (NSDCC) (Cause E946 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1583 (KLR) (25 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1583 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Cause E946 of 2024 ON Makau, J May 25, 2026 Between Gregory Jobura Weere Claimant and National Syndemic Diseases Control Council (Nsdcc) Respondent Judgment Introduction 1.By a Memorandum of Claim dated 6th November 2024 the Claimant sued the respondent for unfair termination of his employment and prayed for the following:-i.A declaration that the Respondent unfairly terminated the employment of the Claimant.ii.An order directing the Respondent to pay the claimant: -a.Three (3) months' pay in lieu of notice - Kshs. 1,356,735.00b.Twelve (12) months' salary as compensation for unlawful termination of employment - Kshs. 5,426,940.00c.Costs of this suit.d.Interests on (a) and (b) from the date of filing.e.Any other relief as the court deems fit and just. 2.The Respondent filed a Reply to the Memorandum of Claim dated 11th December 2024 denying liability and averred that the Claimant's employment contract automatically lapsed by effluxion of time. It further averred that there was no legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. Evidence 3.The Claimant testified as CW1 and adopted his written statement dated 6th November 2024 as his evidence in chief. He also produced a bundle of 13 documents in the list dated 6th November 2024 as exhibits. 4.His evidence in brief was that he was employed by the Respondent (formerly, National Aids Control Council) in September 2008, as the Head, Human Resources & Administration. His contract was for a duration of 3 years renewable subject to satisfactory performance and approval by the council. He was required to give at least 6 months' notice of intention to terminate or renew the contract, before the end of the contractual period. The council was then obligated to communicate the decision of acceptance or rejection of such intent 3 months before the lapse of the contract. 5.He testified that he served as the Head of Human Resources and Administration for six (6) terms of three years, commencing in 2008. The contracts were renewed consecutively vide a renewal letter dated 7th November 2011, 24th October 2014, 20th September 2015, 7th September 2018 and 9th August 2021. 6.He contended that his last contract was scheduled to lapse on 1st October 2024, and vide a memo dated 12th March 2024 he requested for renewal of the said contract. The Respondent vide a letter dated 30th July 2024 informed him that his request had been held in abeyance pending the Board authentication of his academic certificates and professional certificates. As a result, he resubmitted copies of certified academic and professional certificates for authentication and none of his academic credentials were impeached. 7.He reported to work on 1st October 2024 when his contract was scheduled to lapse and no communication was made concerning his request for renewal. He reported to work again on 2nd October 2024 when the Administration officer delivered a termination letter from the CEO purportedly dated 30th September 2024 informing him that his last working day was on 1st October 2024. He had worked continuously from 2008 until 2nd October 2024 when he received the termination letter. His monthly salary by then was of Kshs. 452,245.00. 8.On cross examination, he stated that he received a letter dated 30th September 2024 for non-renewal of contract which essentially terminated his contract. He admitted that his employment was on renewable contract and five contracts ran for 3 years each. He stated that there were two ingredients for renewal: performance and the board's approval based on performance. 9.He contended that he performed his work excellently but the board declined to approve the renewal. He confirmed that his gratuity was paid and a certificate of service was issued. 10.In re-examination, he stated that no reason was advanced for the non-renewal and contended that his certificates were verified. 11.The Respondent called its Director Human Resource and Administration, Mr. William Kipyego Birech, who testified as RW1. He adopted his written statement dated 14th March 2025 as his evidence in chief and produced 12 documents annexed thereto as exhibits. 12.He stated that the Claimant was employed by the respondent as the Head, Human Resources and Administration, on or about 10th September 2008. The employment was for affixed term of three (3) year renewable. The Claimant served for six (6) terms of 3 years each beginning 2008. 13.He confirmed that the Claimant made a request for renewal of his contract vide a memo dated 12th March 2024 but the same was not acted upon because of the changes in the respondent’s organizational structure. He stated that the Respondent received the approved Human Resource Instruments by State Corporations Advisory Committee vide a letter dated 3rd April 2024 that advised that all staff should be vacated from the old structure and be transitioned to the new structure horizontally. 14.He stated that the new Respondent's organizational structure abolished the office of the Head, Human Resources and Administration and established the position of Deputy Director, Human Resource Management, NSDCC Grade 3. As a result the Claimant was temporarily deployed to the position of Deputy Director, Human Resource Management awaiting the Board to conduct suitability interview for horizontal placement. 15.He further stated that the Claimant's renewal application was placed before the Respondent's Full Council Meeting held on 29th July 2024 but the same was held in abeyance pending the outcome of his suitability assessment. The Claimant was subjected to a suitability interview on 24th September 2024, to assess whether he possessed the required knowledge, ability, skills, and competencies required in the position of Deputy Director, Human Resource Management. However, the Respondent did not find him suitable to serve in the said position, and failed to renew his contract when it lapsed on 1st October 2024. 16.He testified that it is the prerogative of the Respondent's Council to renew or not to renew employees' contract as stipulated in Clause 2:12 (c) of the Human Resources Administration Policies and Regulations, 2009 (exhibit D6). 17.In cross examination, RW1 admitted that the termination of the contract occurred before he was employed by the Respondent. He further admitted that the letter dated 30th July 2024 put the renewal in abeyance pending verification of certificates and that by a letter dated 6th September 2024, the Respondent confirmed that the certificates had been verified. 18.He also admitted that paragraph 8 of his witness statement stated that they were awaiting the Board to conduct suitability interviews but he had not filed any minutes of the suitability interviews. He confirmed that exhibit D7 is an excerpt from minutes of the full council and minute 6 refers to a report from an ad hoc committee on suitability interviews. He admitted that the report is not before court and the questionnaire used is also not in court. 19.He contended that the Board resolved that the claimant was not suitable for the senior position of Deputy Director HR management. He confirmed that the position required a Masters Degree and the claimant held the same. He further confirmed that the termination letter did not give any reason for the termination. 20.In re-examination, he stated that a suitability exercise was carried out and that he only filed an abstract of the Board's minutes which related to the claimant. He maintained that the council is not obligated to renew a fixed term contract or to give any reason for non-renewal. 21.After the close of the hearing, the parties filed written submissions. The Claimant filed his submissions dated 10th January 2026 and the Respondent filed its submissions dated 10th February 2026. Determination 22.Having considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions, the following issues fell for determination: -a.Whether the Claimant's services were unfairly terminated or his contract lapsed.b.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Statement of Claim.c.Who should bear costs of the claim? Unfair termination or the contract lapsed 23.The claimant’s contract was for a fixed term renewable contract provided he expressed his desire for the renewal six months before the expiry date. He applied for renewal vide a letter dated 12th March 2024 and the respondent by a letter dated 30th July 2024 stated that his request would be held in abeyance pending authentication of his academic and professional certificates. Finally, the Respondent issued a letter to the Claimant dated 30th September 2024 informing him that his contract was not renewed and that his last working day was 1st October 2024. That letter did not give any reason for the non-renewal. 24.The Claimant contended that he had a legitimate expectation of renewal of his contract based on the Respondent's conduct, regular practice, custom and previous renewals. Therefore, he contended that the non-renewal of his contract amounted to unfair and unlawful termination of his employment. 25.He relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Transparency International - Kenya v. Omondi [2023] KECA 174 (KLR) where the court adopted the Supreme Court case of Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v. Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2014] eKLR on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. 26.The Claimant also relied on Kirigo v. Othaya Mukurwe-Ini Water Services Limited [2025] KEELRC 451 (KLR) where the court held that a contract of employment created a legitimate expectation for renewal if the employee fulfilled the stated conditions. He further relied on John Nduba v. Africa Medical and Research Foundation (AMREF Health Africa) [2020] KEELRC 1685 (KLR) where the court faulted the employer for not renewing a fixed term contract in the presence of a legitimate expectation for renewal. 27.The Claimant further relied on Kipsang v. Kenya Revenue Authority [2025] KEELRC 2836 (KLR) where the court held that non-renewal of a contract done contrary to the employer's own express communication and failure to renew for reasons that were non-existent was wrongful termination. 28.However, the Respondent contends that the Claimant's contract lapsed by effluxion of time and there was no legitimate expectation for renewal. It relied on the case of Rajab Barasa & 4 Others v. Kenya Meat Commission (2021) eKLR where the court held that once the event agreed on between an employer and its employee takes place or materializes, there would ordinarily be no dismissal; that the expiry of the fixed term contract of employment does not constitute termination of the contract by any of the parties; that there is an automatic termination of the contract by operation of law and not a dismissal or unfair termination of employment. 29.The Respondent also relied on Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2018 Transparency International (Kenya) v. Teresa Carlo Omondi where the Court of Appeal held that there is no point of having a fixed-term contract if the contract automatically renews itself as it beats the purpose; that the expiry of a fixed term does not amount to dismissal or termination; that renewal is at the discretion of the employer; and that there is no obligation to explain the reasons for non-renewal of a fixed-term contract. 30.The Respondent further cited Nguru v. Buds and Blooms Limited (2022) KEELRC 4007 (KLR) for the proposition that fixed term contracts do not carry any expectation of renewal and that the employer is not obligated to explain the reasons for non-renewal. 31.I have carefully considered the rival contentions and submissions above. The court notes that the Claimant, being the Respondent’s Head of HR was aware or had the reason to be aware of the changes in the organizational structure of the respondent. The Respondent produced a letter dated 3rd April 2024 from the State Corporations Advisory Committee (SCAC) to the Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Health and copied to the Respondent’s CEO communicating its approval of the new HR Instruments for the Respondent including the Organizational Structure, Staff Establishment, Career Guidelines and HR Police Manual. The letter further gave a greenlight for the implementation of the said instruments. 32.Following the said new HR Instruments, the position held by the Claimant fell off from the Respondent’s Organizational structure, and he was temporarily deployed to the position of Deputy Director of Human Resource vide the letter dated 22nd July 2024. His terms and conditions of service were however not affected by the said deployment. By a subsequent letter dated 30th July 2024, he was notified that his letter for renewal of his contract was presented to the Board on 29th July 2024, but it was held in abeyance pending authentication of his academic and professional certificates. 33.RW1 admitted that the certificates where verified and further that the Claimant held a Masters degree which was the highest requirement for entry to the position of Director of HR and Administration. He further stated that the claimant was subjected to suitability interview as directed by SCAC in the letter dated 3rd April 2024 and he failed the interview. This court wonders why the Claimant concealed the fact that there were changes organizational structure; that he had been deployed to a new position; and that he was subjected to suitability assessment. The inference I draw from the said concealment is that he deemed the same to be detrimental to his case. 34.Having said that, I proceeded to note that the, whereas the Claimant had enjoyed easy renewal of his contract from 2008 up to 2021, things changed in 2024 when SCAC approved the new HR Instruments for the Respondent that scraped his role and created new roles. The existing staff were supposed to exit the old positions and undergo suitability assessment before transitioning to the new roles under the new organogram and the Career Guidelines. In the circumstances, I find that the claimant cannot claim any right to legitimate expectation to renewal of his contract for a non-existent position. 35.It follows that the claimant’s contract lapsed automatically on 1st October 2024 by effluxion of time. As at that time, the Claimant had even known that the position of Head of HR & Administration was no longer existing and that is why he was temporarily deployed to the new position of Deputy Director HR & Administration on 22nd July 2024. Consequently, I find and hold that the Claimant’s contract of employment was not unfairly terminated by the Respondent, but rather automatically lapsed on the date agreed between the parties vide the letter of renewal dated 9th August 2021. Reliefs 36.The Claimant prayed for declaration that the Respondent unfairly terminated his employment, salary in lieu of notice and compensation for unfair termination. However, in view of the foregoing conclusion that his contract lapsed automatically by effluxion of time, the reliefs sought in his Memorandum of Claim dated 6th November 2024 are not merited. In the end I dismiss the suit with costs to the Respondent. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.ONESMUS MAKAUJUDGEAppearance:Kipkorir for ClaimantNyoike for Kioko for Respondent