Muchoki v Mediheal Group of Hospitals (Cause E051 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2739 (KLR) (3 October 2025) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 2739 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret

Cause E051 of 2024

MA Onyango, J

October 3, 2025

Between

Cecilia Wamboi Muchoki

Claimant

and

Mediheal Group of Hospitals

Respondent

Judgment

1.The Claimant filed the Statement of Claim dated 10^th July 2024 seeking the following orders:a.A declaration that the Claimant’s employment was procedurally and substantively unfair and amounted to constructive dismissal (sic)b.A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to be issued with a Certificate of service by the Respondentc.A declaration that allowing the Claimant to proceed on only 2 months’ unpaid maternity leave was unfair labour practice and award of Kshs 1,000,000 as exemplary damagesd.The Claimant be paid her dues and terminal benefits as particularized in the claime.Interests on (c) at court rates until payment in fullf.Costs of this suitg.Any other relief that this Honourable Court may deem just and fit to grant

2.The Claimant avers that she was employed by the Respondent as a Nurse at a monthly salary of Kshs 80,685.

3.She contends that she diligently and faithfully served the Respondent until December 2023 when her employment was unfairly terminated.

4.According to the Claimant, the Respondent wrongfully withheld her salaries from July 2023 and subsequently, without notice, unfairly terminated her employment in December 2023.

5.She contends that withholding her salary from August 2023 was intended to frustrate her, amounting to constructive dismissal.

6.The Claimant further avers that throughout her employment, the Respondent failed to pay service pay, leave days, overtime, and dues for work on public holidays.

7.The Claimant asserts that during the subsistence of employment, she went for a 2 months’ unpaid maternity leave instead of the statutory guaranteed three months’ paid maternity leave.

8.The Claimant maintains that the Respondent’s conduct was unfair, malicious, and devoid of procedure.

9.The Claimant particularized her claim against the Respondent as follows: -i.12 months’ salary as compensation for unlawful termination…………………Kshs. 968,220ii.5 months’ salary arrears…………….Kshs 403,425iii.3 months unpaid maternity leave salary…Kshs 242,055iv.1 month’s salary in lieu of notice………Kshs 80,685v.Service pay………………………………Kshs 504,281vi.Unpaid annual leave dues for 7 years….Kshs 282,398

10.The Respondent was served but failed to file defence or attend court. The suit therefore proceeded undefended.

The Evidence

11.The Claimant testified on 16^th December 2024 as CW1. She adopted her witness statement recorded on 8^th July 2024 as her evidence in chief.

12.It was her testimony that she was employed by the Respondent as a nurse vide a letter of appointment dated 28^th May 2019 but started working on 31^st August 2018.

13.She contended that her last salary was Kshs 80,685 which was paid to her in June 2023.

14.The Claimant contended that she continued working for the Respondent without getting a salary until December 2023.

15.At the close of the Claimant’s case, the court directed that written submissions be filed. The Claimant filed her submissions dated 8^th February 2025.

Determination

16.From the pleadings, the evidence adduced in court and the submissions of the Claimant, the issues that fall for determination are: -i.Whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed by the Respondent.ii.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

17.The central question is whether the circumstances under which the Claimant left employment amounted to constructive dismissal.

18.Black’s Law Dictionary (Tenth Edition) defines constructive dismissal or discharge as:“An employer’s creation of working conditions that leave a particular employee or group of employees little or no choice but to resign, as by fundamentally changing the working conditions or terms of employment; an employer’s course of action that, being detrimental to an employee, leaves the employee almost no option but to quit.”

19.The Court of Appeal in the case of Coca Cola East & Central Africa Limited v Maria Kagai Lugaga [2015] eKLR while addressing itself to the issue of constructive dismissal observed as follows;“The key element in the definition of constructive dismissal is that the employee must have been entitled to or have the right to leave without notice because of the employer’s conduct. Entitled to leave has two interpretations which gives rise to the test to be applied. The first interpretation is that the employee could leave when the employer’s behaviour towards him was so unreasonable that he could not be expected to stay- this is the unreasonable test. The second interpretation is that the employer’s conduct is so grave that it constitutes a repudiatory breach of the contract of employment- this is the contractual test.”

20.Based on the above authority, the question that this court ought to answer is whether the circumstances under which the Claimant left employment would constitute constructive dismissal.

21.In her testimony, the Claimant averred that her last salary was paid in June 2023 but she continued working until December 2023 without further pay.

22.Withholding of salary strikes at the core of the employment relationship. Section 17(1) of the Employment Act obliges an employer to pay wages as and when they fall due, and subsection (10) criminalizes failure to do so. Further, Article 41 of the Constitution guarantees every worker the right to fair labour practices, which includes timely payment of wages.

23.Kenyan courts have consistently held that non-payment of salary amounts to a repudiatory breach. In Mokaya v Christ the King Parish & another (Cause 386 of 2015) [2024] KEELRC 28 (KLR) (25 January 2024) (Judgment) the court held:-“It is the evidence on record that the claimant worked for the respondents, with a good disciplinary record, for the period from January, 2013 to July, 2015. There is no evidence that the respondents were experiencing financial challenges at the time they defaulted in paying the monthly salary to the claimant; there is no evidence of low enrolment in the school; and there is no evidence that the respondents contacted and or discussed the delay or non-payment of the monthly salary with the claimant. Applying the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in Coca Cola East & Central Africa Limited V Maria Kagai Ligaga (Supra) to the evidence and the circumstances of this cause, it is clear and unambiguous that the claimant resigned due to the unilateral decision by the respondents not to pay her monthly salary for three consecutive months. Non-payment of salary to an employee who is working as expected and directed is such a fundamental breach of the contract of employment as it subjects an employee to unfair labour practices under Article 41 of the Constitution. Further, non-payment of salary or wages as and when the same falls due and payable subjects an employee to servitude, undue suffering, and indignity. An employer who is unable to pay working employees shall take remedial measures at the earliest opportunity. Such an employer may negotiate on a mutually agreeable structure of offsetting such arrears or even declare the affected employees redundant under Section 40 of the Act. It is therefore the finding and holding of this court that the resignation of the claimant was neither voluntary nor of free-will but was occasioned by the unbearable working environment that was created by the respondents through non-payment of the monthly salary for three consecutive months as alluded to above. The respondents subjected the claimant to unfair working conditions and practices and failed to meet their legal obligations as employers. They breached a fundamental term of the contract. The evidence of non-payment of the said salaries is on record with the respondents even making a failed attempt to pay the same two years after termination in 2017 when this cause was pending in court. The court has no difficulties in declaring that the respondents by their conduct constructively dismissed the claimant as pleaded.”

24.Similarly, in Nyabuti v East African Safari Express Ltd, ELRC Cause E682 of 2022 [2024] KEELRC 2064 (KLR), the Court held that non-payment of salary for three months was sufficient to establish constructive dismissal.

25.In the instant case there is no doubt that the Respondent delayed in paying salaries for some months. The Claimant however did not mention either in her pleadings or testimony in court that there was termination of her employment. She did not prove that she terminated her employment due to breach of a fundamental obligation by the employer or that the employer terminated her employment.

26.What seems to have happened in this case is that the Claimant walked out of her employment because her salary had not been paid by the Respondent. That means that she terminated her employment in breach of her employment contract.

27.For the court to find that there was constructive dismissal, there must be a termination of employment by the employee on grounds of breach of a fundamental term of employment by the employer.

28.The failure to pay salary as and when it falls due was the essence of the decision in the case of Henry Ochido v NGO Co-ordination Board [2015] eKLR where the court observed as follows:“Constructive dismissal or discharge has been defined by the Court in Nathan Ogada Atiagaga versus Davis Engineering Cause No.419 or 2014 as follows: “Constructive dismissal, occurs when an employee resigns because their employers behaviour has become so intolerable or made life so difficult that the employee has no choice but to resign. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is in effect a termination. For example, when an employer makes life extremely difficult for an employee to force the employee to resign rather than outright firing the employee, the employer is trying to effect a constructive discharge. Due to the conduct of an employer that make the work environment intolerable, the employee is thus forced to tender his resignation. As submitted by the Petitioner in the case of Emmanuel Mutisya Solomon versus Agility Logistics, Cause No, 1448 of 2011, and the basics of a constructive dismissal can be described as,... Situation in the workplace, which has been created by the employer, and which renders the continuation of the employment relationship intolerable for the employee to such an extent that the employee has no other option available but to resign. The concept of constructive dismissal is underpinned on the notion that there is implied in a contract of employment a term that the employer will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated or highly likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee. Breach of that implied term will entitle the employee to treat him or herself as wrongfully dismissed. The intolerable conditions set by the employer are of the nature that the continued employment of employee is not tenable and he has to resign. Thus, by the conduct of the employer there is a fundamental breach of the contract of employment, such breach has no reasonable cause, and such conduct has severely damaged the employment relationship. Such are matters that an applicant, Petitioner or claimant must address when claiming constructive dismissal.”

29.Applying the principles in above decisions, for a court to find that there was constructive dismissal, there must be a termination of employment by the employee on grounds of alleged fundamental breach of the employment contract by the employer. The alleged failure to pay salary must be followed by a resignation letter citing the grounds of resignation to be the breach of fundamental terms of the contract by the employer.

30.The Claimant herein did not indicate that she ever sent a letter of resignation to the Respondent. The Claimant’s action of walking out of employment without resigning was as much a breach of her employment terms as was the Respondent’s failure to pay her salary for the cited months. Two wrongs do not make a right and a person who breaches her contract because the other party has breached the contract cannot claim compensation from the other as both parties are in breach.

31.For these reasons I find that the Claimant has not proved constructive dismissal by the Respondent.

Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

32.I now turn to the reliefs sought. In her Statement of Claim, the Claimant sought several reliefs which I will address in separate heads.i.A declaration that the Claimant’s employment was procedurally and substantively unfair and amounted to constructive dismissalHaving found that the Claimant did not prove that she was constructively dismissed from employment, she is not entitled to this prayer.ii.A declaration that allowing the Claimant to proceed on only 2 months’ unpaid maternity leave was unfair labour practiceNo evidence was adduced to prove that the Claimant went on maternity leave for which she was not paid or that she was denied maternity leave when she was entitled to the same. In the absence of evidence, the orders sought in this payer cannot issue.iii.12 Months’ salary as compensation for unfair terminationThe Claimant sought for the maximum compensation under this head. The Claimant had worked for the Respondent for almost 5 years at the time she left employment. Having not proved unfair termination or constructive dismissal, the Claimant is not entitled to compensation under this head.iv.5 months’ salary arrearsThe only evidence adduced by the claimant in support of non-payment of her salary for 5 months is a pay slip for July 2022 at Document 4 of her bundle of documents. There is thus no evidence that she was an employee of the Respondent for the period she claims arrears of salary. This prayer accordingly fails.v.3 months’ maternity leave salaryThis prayer has been dealt with under (ii) above.vi.One-month salary in lieu of noticeHaving not proved unfair termination, the Claimant is not entitled to this prayer.vii.Service payFrom the evidence on record and in particular, the Claimant’s pay slip for November 2022, the Claimant was a contributing member of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF). She is therefore not entitled to service pay.viii.Leave duesThe Claimant did not adduce evidence in court that she never went on leave during the employment period. This prayer is declined.ix.Certificate of serviceThe Claimant is entitled to be issued with a Certificate of Service pursuant to Section 51(1) of the Employment Act 2007.

33.In conclusion, the claim is dismissed except for the prayer the Respondent to issues a certificate of service to the Claimant.

34.Each party shall bear its costs of this suit.

35.Interest shall accrue at court rates from date of judgment.

DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED THIS 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025.M. ONYANGOJUDGE

Muchoki v Mediheal Group of Hospitals (Cause E051 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2739 (KLR) (3 October 2025) (Judgment)

Muchoki v Mediheal Group of Hospitals (Cause E051 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2739 (KLR) (3 October 2025) (Judgment)

Collections

Cited documents 2

Act 2

Documents citing this one 0

1.	Constitution of Kenya	44806 citations
2.	Employment Act	8217 citations