Registered Trustees of Jesse Kay Children’s Hospital v Njagi (Appeal E237 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 670 (KLR) (28 February 2025) (Judgment)

Key Facts

Issues

• The court assessed whether the trial court's awarded reliefs (e.g., compensation, salary deductions, house allowance) were legally justified and aligned with the Employment Act provisions.
• The court examined if the trial magistrate made an error in determining that the Respondent's termination was unlawful under the Employment Act, considering the circumstances of redundancy and contract terms.
• The court reviewed whether the trial court erred in dismissing claims that the Respondent was discriminated against on account of pregnancy and subjected to poor working conditions, which could justify general damages.

Holdings

• The court affirmed the trial court's awards including one month pay in lieu of notice, five months compensation for unfair termination, salary deductions for June–October 2020, house allowance, severance pay, and a certificate of service. The reliefs were deemed lawful under the Employment Act, with no procedural errors in their calculation.
• The court upheld that the Respondent was unfairly terminated due to redundancy, as the Appellant failed to follow proper procedures under the Employment Act. The termination was at the employer's initiative without valid financial proof or adherence to sections 40 and 41 of the Act, rendering it unlawful.
• The court dismissed the cross-appeal regarding discrimination and poor working conditions, finding the claims not properly pleaded. The Respondent did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate allegations of pregnancy-based discrimination or unsafe work conditions.

Remedies

• The prayer seeking to make the Respondent pay all statutory deductions to relevant authorities was dismissed.
• The prayer for general damages was dismissed by the court.
• The Claimant received a house allowance award at Kshs 247,514.
• The Claimant was awarded a certificate of service.
• The Claimant was awarded 8 days salary for November, 2020 at Kshs 13,335.
• The Claimant was awarded the costs of the suit at court rates.
• The Claimant received five months' compensation for unlawful termination at Kshs 250,015.
• The court issued a declaration that the Claimant's termination of employment by the Respondent was in violation of section 40 of the Employment Act and therefore unfair.
• The Claimant was awarded one month pay in lieu of notice at Kshs 50,003.
• The Claimant was awarded the salary deducted for the months of June, 2020 to October, 2020 at Kshs 101,215.
• The Claimant was awarded severance pay at Kshs 50,003.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The appellate court outlined three principles for first appeals: (1) re-evaluate evidence independently, (2) give due allowance to the trial court's firsthand witness assessment, and (3) avoid overturning findings merely for disagreeing with conclusions. This standard was applied to assess the trial court's redundancy and compensation determinations.
• The court applied the doctrine of estoppel to dismiss the cross-appeal's discrimination claim, finding the respondent admitted termination was due to redundancy and could not later assert contradictory grounds. This aligns with the principle in Central London Property Trust Ltd vs High Trees House Ltd [1947] 1 KB 130 that estoppel applies when a party relies on a representation altering their legal position.
• Redundancy must meet operational requirements and fair procedure under section 40 of the Employment Act. The court emphasized that termination must be involuntary, not at the employee's fault, and require adherence to procedural fairness including notice and consultation.
• The employer had the burden to prove redundancy was justified under section 43 of the Employment Act by demonstrating unavailability of funds. The court held this duty was unmet, as the Appellant failed to produce financial records to substantiate the redundancy claim.

Precedent Name

• Kenya Airways Limited VS. Aviation and Allied Workers Union of Kenya and 3 Others
• Central London Property Trust Ltd vs High Trees House Ltd
• Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers vs Tusker Mattresses Limited
• Peters vs Sunday Post Limited
• European Committee for Agriculture Training Rural Development (C.E.F.A) Kenya v Moses Muriuki Matiri
• Abere v Mini Bakeries (Nairobi) Limited
• GMV v Bank of Africa Limited
• Nisha Nileshbai Nhasar v Kensal Limited
• The Registered Trustees De La Salle Christian Brothers T/A St. Mary's Boys' Secondary School vs Julius D.M. Baini
• Musera versus Mwechelesi & another

Cited Statute

Judge Name

Passage Text

• the court agrees with the lower court that discrimination was not properly pleaded and the injuries due to poor work condition were not properly demonstrate to be entitle the respondent to general damages.
• The Appellant had the duty to prove the reason of unavailability of funds at that particular moment by producing financial records but it did not. This court also agrees with the trial court finding that since the 2020 contract was not signed by the Respondent it could not be binding upon her and the only contract in place was the 2018 contract executed by parties.
• the court agrees with the trial Court's finding that the Respondent was unfairly terminated on grounds of redundancy. The Appellant did not adhere to section 40 of the Employment Act when declaring the respondent redundant.