REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
ELRC PETITION E008 OF 2026
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 22,23,162 AND 165 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTRAVENTION AND VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND
FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 28,41,43 AND 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA ,2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF RULES 4, 10 AND 11 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (PROTECTION OF
RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES, 2013.
BETWEEN
HELLEN KAGENDO MUCHIRI ……………..………….………. PETITIONER
VERSUS
MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS, CREATIVE
ECONOMY AND SPORTS ....……………………………… 1 ST RESPONDENT
WORLD RALLY CHAMPIONSHIPS(WRC)
SAFARI RALLY
KENYA …..…....................................................….. 2 ND RESPONDENT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL …….……………….. 3 RD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The gist of the Petition is that pursuant to a letter dated 25 th June 2019, the Petitioner was employed by the 2 nd Respondent as a Project Coordinator in the WRC Safari Rally Project; operating under the authority and supervision of the 1 st Respondent, the parent ministry. The Petitioner averred that her employment was for a fixed term from 1 st November 2017 to 31 st August 2019, for a consolidated monthly salary of Kshs 161,080. She added that she had also been appointed as the Event Secretary to the Organizing Committee of the WRC Safari Rally Project vide Gazette Notice No. 12089 of 2017 , dated 23 rd November 2017, by the then Cabinet Secretary for Sports, Culture and the Arts, which was subsequently reconstituted as the Ministry of Youth Affairs, Creative Economy and Sports. She averred that the Committee was constituted for a term of 3 years commencing 1 st November 2017, with the mandate of organizing the 2018 International Moderation Federation (FIA) Safari Rally World Championship candidate event and subsequent FIA Safari Rally World Rally Championship events.
2. She averred that throughout her employment, she was diligent in her work and no complaint was raised against her for the entire period. The Petitioner outlined that her outstanding and exemplary performance in her employment saw her attaining awards and her contract being extended two consecutive times under the same terms and conditions as the original contract; being from 1 st September 2019 to 30 th April 2020; and from 1 st May 2020 to 31st August 2020.
3. The Petitioner averred that through Gazette Notice No. 1965 of 2020 dated 24 th February 2020 and a letter dated 12 th March 2020, she was reappointed as the Event Secretary to the Organizing Committee of the WRC Safari Rally Project. That the Committee was constituted for a term of 3 years commencing 1 st March 2020 with the mandate of organizing the WRC Safari Rally Kenya for the periods 2020, 2021 and 2022, including the transition period. She averred that when the same was about to lapse, the 2 nd Respondent vide a letter dated 20 th August 2020 renewed her contract for the position of Project Coordinator - Event Secretary for a period of 19 months commencing 1 st September 2020 and ending on 28 th February 2022, at a consolidated monthly salary of KShs. 161,080.
4. She averred further that the 2 nd Respondent, vide a letter dated 28 th February 2022, further renewed her contract for a period of 10 months, from 1 st March 2022 to 31 st December 2022 at a pay of Kshs 164,360 per month. Additionally, by Gazette Notice No. 9336 of 2022 , and a letter dated 5 th August 2022, the Cabinet Secretary for the 1 st Respondent, appointed her to serve on the WRC Safari Rally Secretariat as the Event Secretary for a period of 4 years, from 1 st May 2022 to 1 st August 2026. She averred that the key mandate was to organize the 2023,2024,2025 and 2026 WRC Safari Rally in Kenya. She added that similarly, the 2 nd Respondent vide a letter dated 20 th December 2022, renewed her contract for a period of 12 months, from 1 st January 2023 to 31 st December 2023, on the same terms and conditions as the immediate previous contract.
5. Vide Gazette Notice No. 1648 of 2023 dated 10 th February 2023, she was once again reappointed as the Event Secretary to the Organizing Committee for the WRC Safari Rally Project, for a term of 1 year with effect from 4 th January 2023. She averred that the said Gazette Notice, revoked the previous Gazette Notice No. 9336 of 2022 without giving any reason or cause for such revocation. She averred that the revocation served the direct effect of terminating her substantive appointment long before the lapse of her four-year tenure initially running up to 1 st August 2026.
6. She averred that on 3 rd January 2024, the Respondents terminated her employment by abruptly denying her access to her office premises, thereby preventing her from performing her official duties. She averred that at the time, she was still actively engaged in discharging her assigned duties with the 2 nd Respondent, and no notice, reason or explanation had been issued to her regarding the said revocation. She added that the termination was effected on the very day she and her team finalized the 2024 WRC Safari Rally budget statement for onward presentation to the Cabinet Secretary. She termed the termination as a blatant contravention of Section 41 of the Employment 2007 and an infringement on her right to fair labour practices under Articles 41 of the Constitution of Kenya as well as her right to fair administrative action guaranteed under Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya as read with Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
7. In addition, she averred that from the Respondents’ past conduct, she legitimately expected, that her contract would be renewed for the ensuing period of the WRC Safari Rally Project scheduled to run until 2026. She further averred that she was entitled to prior notification at the very least, in the event that the Respondents did not intend to renew it; unless the same was lawfully terminated in accordance with the law or by issuance of one month’s notice in accordance with the terms of her contracts.
8. She averred that she has suffered unfair labour practices through the arbitrary and unlawful termination and the unfair administrative action all of which contravened her right to dignity guaranteed under Article 28 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. She averred that coupled with the absence of notice and the denial of a hearing, the Respondents failed and/or refused to pay her terminal dues or issue her with a Certificate of service. She added that the Respondents further failed to pay sitting allowances due to her for the period, 1 st November 2017 to 3 rd January 2024, that she served as a member of the WRC Safari Rally Organizing Committee; together with allowances due for local travels to Naivasha, and international assignments to Burundi.
9. She averred that she diligently followed up on these reimbursements during her employment and duly submitted all the requisite supporting documents for payment, but no settlement was ever made. She further averred that she did not have access to copies of those documents, as she was denied entry into her office on the day of termination of her employment and consequently could not retrieve any documents. She also averred that for certain trips, including those to Burundi and Naivasha, she was not paid per diem prior to travel, having been informed that the 2 nd Respondent lacked funds at the time and that payment would be made subsequently, which never occurred.
10. Additionally, she averred that she was never paid her accrued and untaken leave days, yet she only proceeded on leave for a period of two weeks during the entire period of her employment.
11. On gratuity, she averred that she had been following up on it since October 2023. That consequent to failure to receive payments, she together with other ex-secretariat members escalated the matter to the President of the Republic of Kenya, Dr. William Samoei Ruto, EGH, vide a letter dated 12 th March 2024. She averred further that they also wrote to the 2 nd Respondent Chief Executive Officer vide a letter dated 11 th June 2024 and did a follow up vide a letter dated 24 th September 2024.
12. She averred that they jointly petitioned the National Assembly seeking intervention regarding their unpaid dues but all these efforts bore no fruits. Consequently, she was constrained to issue a formal demand letter dated 21 st July 2025, to the 1 st Respondent’s Principal Secretary accompanied by a Notice of Intention to sue the Government dated 26 th September 2025 through her Advocates; demanding payment of compensation for unlawful termination and her terminal dues in vain. She averred that the Respondent’s illegal and oppressive actions have caused her to suffer immense emotional distress. As such, she prays for judgment against the Respondents jointly and severally for:
(a) A declaration that the revocation of the Petitioner’s appointment by the then Cabinet Secretary of the 1 st Respondent was unconstitutional.
(b) A declaration that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents’ actions violated the Petitioner’s Constitutional and Statutory rights.
(c) A declaration that the termination of the Petitioner’s employment was unfair, unlawful, and in breach of the Employment Act, 2007.
(d) Compensation for unfair termination equivalent to twelve (12) months’ gross salary: Kshs 1,972,320.
(e) One (1) month’s salary in lieu of notice: Kshs 164,360.
(f) Payment for accrued and untaken leave days:
• 7 Days in 2019 (Kshs. 5,478.67 x 7) = Kshs. 38,350.67
• 42 Days in 2020 and 2021 (Kshs. 5,478.67x 42) = Kshs. 230,104
• 42 Days in 2022 and 2023 (Kshs. 5,478.67x42) =Kshs. 230,104
Total Kshs 498,558.67
(g) Vehicle service reimbursement: Kshs 20,000.
(h) Travel reimbursement: Kshs 975,000.
(i) Gratuity (Kshs. 2,004,038.40)
(j) Sitting allowances due to her for the period she served as a member of the WRC Safari Rally Organizing Committee being 1 st November 2017 to 3 rd January 2024.
(k) A Certificate of Service pursuant to Section 51 of the Employment Act, 2007.
(l) Costs of this suit.
(m) Interest on (d) to (j) above at court rates from the date of filing until payment in full.
(n) Any other or further relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to grant.
13. The Respondents opposed the Petition vide their Replying Affidavit sworn by Dennis Kinyua, the 2 nd Respondent’s Director of Human Resource Management, on 10 th February 2026. He acknowledged that the Petitioner was engaged by the World Rally Championship (WRC) Safari Rally Kenya Secretariat under a written fixed-term contract in the position of Project Coordinator - Event Secretary, with the initial engagement commencing on 1 st November 2017 and subsequent engagements thereafter. He stated that the Petitioner's final contract was a fixed-term engagement which clearly stipulated its expiry date as 31 st December 2023; and the same was neither terminated prematurely nor unlawfully ended. He stated that the engagements were not structured as annually renewable contracts but were expressly dependent on the availability of funds and approval of relevant budgetary allocations, a fact well known and acknowledged by the Petitioner at the time of execution of the contracts.
14. He stated that upon expiry of the Petitioner's final contract on 31 st December 2023, no renewal was effected as the contractual relationship had lawfully come to an end by effluxion of time. He denied the allegation that the Petitioner's employment was unlawfully terminated adding that the Petitioner had no legitimate expectation of renewal, the terms of the fixed-term contract having been clear and voluntarily accepted. He added that vide Gazette Notice No. 1769 dated 16 th February 2024, the Cabinet Secretary for Sports was mandated to constitute the WRC Safari Rally Secretariat, where new appointment letters were issued and the Petitioner was not amongst them.
15. He termed the issuance of the said Gazette Notice and subsequent appointments a lawful exercise of statutory and administrative authority that did not amount to revocation of any of the Petitioner’s subsisting appointment, as her contract had already expired. He stated that the Respondents deny any unfair, unreasonable or unlawful administrative action on account that all decisions complied with constitutional and statutory requirements.
16. On the alleged terminal benefits, the affiant stated that the Petitioner's contract did not provide for gratuity since she was duly enrolled under the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) in compliance with statutory requirements. He stated that the Petitioner’s contracts sufficiently evidence her period of service and further provides that letters of recommendation are available upon request. He denied any claims of notice pay and unpaid accrued leave days, on ground that the contract was not unlawfully terminated and no leave application was ever unlawfully denied. He contended that the Petition was misconceived and an abuse of the court process and prayed that it be dismissed with costs.
17. In rejoinder, the Petitioner, in her Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 10 th May 2026 deposed that she obtained a contract that was issued to a former colleague which contained a gratuity clause, whereas hers did not. She added that the contract is proof that of the Respondents’ discriminatory and inconsistent application of employment benefits among employees during her tenure.
18. In a Further Affidavit sworn on 2oth May 2026, the Petitioner deposed that she obtained a copy of notice of non-renewal of contract dated 29 th April 2026, sent to a former colleague, indicating reasons for non-renewal of contract. She stated that the letter indicated the 2 nd Respondent’s knowledge of its obligation to issue such notices with reasons prior to the termination of employment. She termed the failure to be issued with such notice as deliberate, unfair, discriminatory and contrary to the Respondent’s practice. She denied the averment that her renewal was subject to availability of funds, stating that the project was always sponsored by the government and private sector sponsors, and no such budgetary issues were raised by the Respondents. She added that the fact that there were new recruitments further negated the allegation of unavailability of funds.
Submissions
19. The Petitioner raised the following issues for determination: (i) whether revocation of the Petitioner’s appointment by the then Cabinet Secretary of the 1 st Respondent was unconstitutional; (ii) whether the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents’ actions violated the Petitioner’s rights under Articles 28, 41, 43 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act and Section 41,43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007; (iii) whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to damages for violation of her constitutional rights and terminal dues, allowances and compensation as prayed for,(iv) who should bear the costs of the suit?
20. On the first issue, the Petitioner questioned why she was denied a chance to serve the four-year term of her appointment. In arguing that she was not granted notice and reasons for her revocation, reliance was placed on the decision in Kenya Airports Authority v Mitu-Bell Welfare Society & 2 others [2016] KECA 432 (KLR) where the court emphasized that:
“The constitutional and statutory provisions on fair administrative action must be adhered to.”
21. On the doctrine of legitimate expectations counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s holding in Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v. Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others, [2014] eKLR where the court outlined the elements of legitimate expectations as follows:
“a) there must be an express, clear and unambiguous promise given by a public authority;
b) the expectation itself must be reasonable;
c) the representation must be one which it was competent and lawful for the decision-maker to make; and
d) there cannot be a legitimate expectation against clear provisions of the law or the Constitution”
22. Counsel submitted that the Petitioner’s expectation that she would serve until 1 st August 2026, arose from the express and unequivocal four-year appointment communicated through Gazette Notice No. 9336 of 2022 issued by the Cabinet Secretary acting within their lawful mandate. It was urged that the expectation was not abstract or subjective, but grounded in a clear and demonstrable pattern of conduct by the Respondents. Reliance was placed on the reasoning in In re Westminster City Council [1986] A.C. 668 , affirmed that:
“Legitimate expectation” is a doctrine well recognized within the realm of administrative law, as is clear from the English case, In re Westminster City Council, [1986] A.C. 668 at 692(Lord Bridge):…
the courts have developed a relatively novel doctrine in public law that a duty of consultation may arise from a legitimate expectation of consultation aroused either by a promise or by an established practice of consultation”…………..
Wade and Forsyth in their work, Administrative Law, 10th ed (pages 446-448), discuss the relevant legal principles on legitimacy of an expectation. For an expectation to be legitimate, it must be founded upon a promise or practice by the public authority, that is said to be bound to fulfil the expectation”
23. The Court’s attention was drawn to the decision in Keen Kleeners Limited v Kenya Plantation and Agricultural workers’ Union [2021] KECA 352 (KLR) where the Court of Appeal held that:
“The trial Court had a sound basis for reaching his conclusion that a legitimate expectation for renewal was created. The long standing, uninterrupted and consistent practice of renewing or extending the grievants’ contracts would have surely led the grievants to believe that their last contracts would be renewed, more so in the absence of any reasonable notice to the contrary given to them by the appellant”
24. Counsel added that the abrupt revocation of her appointment without notice, reasons or a hearing, amounted to an unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional exercise of administrative power. The same was termed as an arbitrary action that was substantively and procedurally unfair, unreasonable, disproportionate, and in abuse of power and discretion, contrary to Section 7(2)(c), (j), (k), (n), and (o) of the Fair Administrative Action Act and Section 7(2)(m) of the Fair Administrative Action Act which renders unfair any administrative action that violates a person’s legitimate expectation. Counsel termed the revocation as arbitrary, unlawful, unconstitutional, and void ab initio .
25. On the second issue, relying on the letter dated 25 th June 2019, it was submitted that it was established practice under the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents’ engagement framework that employees would at times work before formal written contracts were subsequently issued. It was contended that upon the lapse of the last written contract on 31 st December 2023, the Petitioner remained actively engaged in official duties assigned to her by the 2 nd Respondent, as a month to month employee; more so since she was never issued with any notice of non-renewal to indicate that her contract would not be renewed. It was urged that her termination therefore ought to have been in strict adherence of the law.
26. On substantive fairness, reliance was placed on Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007 and the decision in Kamendi v Kenya Breweries Limited [2023] KECA 1210 (KLR).
27. On procedural fairness, reliance was placed on Section 41 of the Employment Act and a catena of caselaw including the decision in Gichuru v Package Insurance Brokers Ltd [2021] KESC 12 (KLR), to urge that the Respondents’ actions were in blatant violation of Article 41(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 for want of procedural and substantive fairness.
28. On the fundamentality of human dignity, reliance was placed on decision in Attorney General v Kituo Cha Sheria & 7 others [2017] KECA 773 (KLR). It was submitted that the Petitioner denied entry into her workplace without explanation which was humiliating and in violation of her dignity. To buttress the submission, reliance was placed on the decision in Kenya County Government Workers’ Union v County Government of Nyeri & Another (2015) KEELRC 100 (KLR) where it was held that:
“Under Article 28 of the Constitution, the employees have inherent dignity and the right to have that dignity respected and protected. Removing the employees from employment without good reason would be in contravention of that inherent human dignity”
29. It was submitted that the continued withholding of the Petitioner’s accrued economic entitlements amounted to a continuing violation of her constitutionally protected socio-economic rights under Article 43 of the Constitution of Kenya,2010.
30. On the third issue, counsel submitted that the Court was empowered under Article 23(3) of the Constitution of Kenya,2010, Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, and Section 49 of the Employment Act, 2007 to grant appropriate reliefs including awards compensation and declaratory orders. The Court was therefore urged to award compensation equivalent to twelve (12) months’ salary. Reliance was placed on the decision in Elizabeth Wakanyi Kibe v Telkom Kenya Ltd [2014] KECA 765 (KLR) where the court quoted Southern Highlands Tobacco -vs- McQueen (1960) EA 490, where it was held that:
“A person wrongfully dismissed is entitled to be compensated fully for the financial loss he suffers as a result of his dismissal, subject to the qualification that it is his duty to do what he can to mitigate his loss.”
31. On accrued leave days, it was submitted that the Petitioner took two weeks leave across her employment period and thus, was entitled to the remainder.
32. On sitting allowance, it was submitted that she was entitled to sitting allowances accrued from attending meetings and performance of official functions.
33. On gratuity, it was submitted that she was entitled to the same as it was evident that she was arbitrarily excluded without any lawful or justifiable cause. Reliance was placed on Article 27 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Employment Act. For vehicle service and travel reimbursement, it was submitted that the Petitioner was entitled to the same from assignments undertaken on behalf of the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents. Counsel urged that the petitioner did not have copies of the documents as she was denied entry into her office to retrieve them.
On Certificate of Service, reliance was placed on Section 51 of the Employment Act. On the last issue, reliance was placed on Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and the decision in Capital Fish Kenya Limited v The Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited [2016] KECA 56 (KLR). The Court was urged to allow the Petition in its entirety.
34. The Respondents isolated the following issues arise for determination: (i) whether the Petitioner’s employment lawfully expired by effluxion of time; (ii) whether the Petitioner had a legitimate expectation of renewal of contract or appointment; (iii) whether the Respondents violated the Petitioner’s constitutional and statutory rights; and (iv) whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought.
35. Counsel submitted that it was not in dispute that the Petitioner was engaged on a fixed-term contract; the last contract having expressly provided for commencement on 1 st January 2023 and expiry on 31 st December 2023. It was added that the said contract was clear, definite and self-terminating upon lapse of time. It was contended that the law is settled that a fixed-term contract terminates automatically upon expiry without the necessity of notice unless otherwise expressly provided. Counsel submitted that the Petitioner was fully aware of the contractual tenure and voluntarily executed the contract with full knowledge of its terms. It was further submitted that expiry of a fixed-term contract did not amount to termination capable of attracting remedies for unfair termination under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. It was contended that the Petitioner’s contention that she continued rendering services in January 2024 did not alter the legal position.
36. Counsel reiterated that the Cabinet Secretary, vide Gazette Notice No. 1769 dated 16 th February 2024, constituted a new Secretariat and issued fresh appointments and the Petitioner was not among those appointed. It was added that such appointments fell within the lawful administrative discretion of the appointing authority and could be challenged merely because the Petitioner expected reappointment. Counsel urged that the doctrine of legitimate expectations could arise contrary to express contractual terms, since the Petitioner’s contract expressly stipulated an end date, with no provision for renewal. It was submitted that no constitutional violation has been established. It was urged that the allegations on denial of office access remain unsubstantiated and cannot elevate a contractual employment matter into a constitutional claim. Counsel added that the Employment Act sufficiently regulated employment disputes and the Petitioner could not constitutionalize a contractual dispute merely to obtain constitutional remedies.
It is submitted that the Petitioner was not entitled to compensation for unfair termination or payment in lieu of notice as there was no premature termination of employment. In denying the claim for gratuity benefits reliance was placed on decision in National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Pipeplastic Samkolit (K) Ltd & Another Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2001 KLR 112 (2002) EA 503 to submit that parties are bound by terms freely agreed upon and courts cannot rewrite contracts on their behalf.
Counsel added that there was no evidence of rejected leave application or proof of unpaid claims duly approved under internal procedures and the Petitioner bore the evidentiary burden of strict proof regarding accrued leave and reimbursements. It was submitted that the Petitioner had failed to establish any unlawful termination, constitutional violation or entitlement to the reliefs sought. Counsel urged that the Petition was misconceived, legally untenable and an abuse of the Court process and prayed for its dismissal with costs.
Analysis and determination
It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was employed by the 2 nd respondent effective 1 st November 2017 under a fixed term contract dated 28 th June 2019, as a Project Coordinator at Kshs.161,080 per month.
The petitioner indicated the dates of signing of the contract as 29 th August 2019. Clearly, the written contract was backdated to 1 st November 2017. Similarly, vide Gazette Notice No. 12088 dated 8 th December 2017, the petitioner was appointed Secretary of the Steering Committee (SC) and Organizing Committee (OC) for the WRC Safari Rally Project chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, Sports Culture and Arts for a term of three (3) years from 1 st November 2017. A letter dated 31 st August 2019, the Petitioner’s employment was extended from 1 st September 2019 to 30 th April 2020 and the Petitioner signed the contract on 3 rd September 2019.
Relatedly, by a contract dated 30 th April 2010, the petitioner contract was extended from 1 st May 2020 to 31 st August 2020. The petitioner signed the contract on 4 th May, 2020 and vide Gazette Notice No. 1964, the Cabinet Secretary appointed the petitioner the Secretary of the Steering Committee and organizing Committee of the WRC Safari Rally Project for 3 years from 1 st March 2020 to organize the Safari Rally, 2020, 2021 and 2022.
In a similar vein, vide a contract signed by the petitioner on 31 st August 2020 the 2 nd Respondent employed the petitioner as the Project Co-ordinator Event Secretary effective 1 st September 2020 to 28 th February 2022.
By a contract dated 28 th February 2022 the 2 nd Respondent offered the petitioner employment as Project Co-ordination effective 1 st March 2022 to 31 st December 2022. The petitioner indicated by hand that she would commence work on 1 st March 2022 but did not indicate the date when she signed the contract.
By Gazette Notice No. 9336 of 5 th August 2022 the Cabinet Secretary revoked the earlier Gazette Notices No. 12088 of 2017 and 1965 of 2020 under which the petitioner had served as Secretary WRC Steering Committee and Organizing Committees.
Finally, vide a contract dated 20 th December 2022, the 2 nd Respondent employed the petitioner as Project Co-ordinator -Event Secretary effective 1 st January 2023 to 31 st December 2023 at a consolidated salary of Kshs.164,360 per month. The petitioner signed the contract on 20 th December 2022 but did not indicate when she would commence work. The effective date was 1 st January 2023. No other written contract was availed by the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that the termination of employment on 3 rd January 2024 was unfair, unlawful and in violation of Article 41 of the Constitution of Kenya in that no reasons or notice was given for the termination.
The petitioner is also contesting the revocation of her appointment as the Secretary of the Steering Committee and Organizing Committee of the WRC Safari Rally Project by the Cabinet Secretary vide Gazette Notice No. 9336 of 5 th August 2022. First the appointment did not constitute an employment contract and no remunerative benefit appear to have been provided to constitute a salary.
Typically, members of committees are paid by way of allowances determined by the appointing authority at its discretion, as it is not a fulltime activ
[...truncated]
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
ELRC PETITION E008 OF 2026
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 22,23,162 AND 165 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTRAVENTION AND VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND
FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 28,41,43 AND 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA ,2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF RULES 4, 10 AND 11 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (PROTECTION OF
RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES, 2013.
BETWEEN
HELLEN KAGENDO MUCHIRI ……………..………….………. PETITIONER
VERSUS
MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS, CREATIVE
ECONOMY AND SPORTS ....……………………………… 1 ST RESPONDENT
WORLD RALLY CHAMPIONSHIPS(WRC)
SAFARI RALLY
KENYA …..…....................................................….. 2 ND RESPONDENT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL …….……………….. 3 RD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The gist of the Petition is that pursuant to a letter dated 25 th June 2019, the Petitioner was employed by the 2 nd Respondent as a Project Coordinator in the WRC Safari Rally Project; operating under the authority and supervision of the 1 st Respondent, the parent ministry. The Petitioner averred that her employment was for a fixed term from 1 st November 2017 to 31 st August 2019, for a consolidated monthly salary of Kshs 161,080. She added that she had also been appointed as the Event Secretary to the Organizing Committee of the WRC Safari Rally Project vide Gazette Notice No. 12089 of 2017 , dated 23 rd November 2017, by the then Cabinet Secretary for Sports, Culture and the Arts, which was subsequently reconstituted as the Ministry of Youth Affairs, Creative Economy and Sports. She averred that the Committee was constituted for a term of 3 years commencing 1 st November 2017, with the mandate of organizing the 2018 International Moderation Federation (FIA) Safari Rally World Championship candidate event and subsequent FIA Safari Rally World Rally Championship events.
2. She averred that throughout her employment, she was diligent in her work and no complaint was raised against her for the entire period. The Petitioner outlined that her outstanding and exemplary performance in her employment saw her attaining awards and her contract being extended two consecutive times under the same terms and conditions as the original contract; being from 1 st September 2019 to 30 th April 2020; and from 1 st May 2020 to 31st August 2020.
3. The Petitioner averred that through Gazette Notice No. 1965 of 2020 dated 24 th February 2020 and a letter dated 12 th March 2020, she was reappointed as the Event Secretary to the Organizing Committee of the WRC Safari Rally Project. That the Committee was constituted for a term of 3 years commencing 1 st March 2020 with the mandate of organizing the WRC Safari Rally Kenya for the periods 2020, 2021 and 2022, including the transition period. She averred that when the same was about to lapse, the 2 nd Respondent vide a letter dated 20 th August 2020 renewed her contract for the position of Project Coordinator - Event Secretary for a period of 19 months commencing 1 st September 2020 and ending on 28 th February 2022, at a consolidated monthly salary of KShs. 161,080.
4. She averred further that the 2 nd Respondent, vide a letter dated 28 th February 2022, further renewed her contract for a period of 10 months, from 1 st March 2022 to 31 st December 2022 at a pay of Kshs 164,360 per month. Additionally, by Gazette Notice No. 9336 of 2022 , and a letter dated 5 th August 2022, the Cabinet Secretary for the 1 st Respondent, appointed her to serve on the WRC Safari Rally Secretariat as the Event Secretary for a period of 4 years, from 1 st May 2022 to 1 st August 2026. She averred that the key mandate was to organize the 2023,2024,2025 and 2026 WRC Safari Rally in Kenya. She added that similarly, the 2 nd Respondent vide a letter dated 20 th December 2022, renewed her contract for a period of 12 months, from 1 st January 2023 to 31 st December 2023, on the same terms and conditions as the immediate previous contract.
5. Vide Gazette Notice No. 1648 of 2023 dated 10 th February 2023, she was once again reappointed as the Event Secretary to the Organizing Committee for the WRC Safari Rally Project, for a term of 1 year with effect from 4 th January 2023. She averred that the said Gazette Notice, revoked the previous Gazette Notice No. 9336 of 2022 without giving any reason or cause for such revocation. She averred that the revocation served the direct effect of terminating her substantive appointment long before the lapse of her four-year tenure initially running up to 1 st August 2026.
6. She averred that on 3 rd January 2024, the Respondents terminated her employment by abruptly denying her access to her office premises, thereby preventing her from performing her official duties. She averred that at the time, she was still actively engaged in discharging her assigned duties with the 2 nd Respondent, and no notice, reason or explanation had been issued to her regarding the said revocation. She added that the termination was effected on the very day she and her team finalized the 2024 WRC Safari Rally budget statement for onward presentation to the Cabinet Secretary. She termed the termination as a blatant contravention of Section 41 of the Employment 2007 and an infringement on her right to fair labour practices under Articles 41 of the Constitution of Kenya as well as her right to fair administrative action guaranteed under Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya as read with Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
7. In addition, she averred that from the Respondents’ past conduct, she legitimately expected, that her contract would be renewed for the ensuing period of the WRC Safari Rally Project scheduled to run until 2026. She further averred that she was entitled to prior notification at the very least, in the event that the Respondents did not intend to renew it; unless the same was lawfully terminated in accordance with the law or by issuance of one month’s notice in accordance with the terms of her contracts.
8. She averred that she has suffered unfair labour practices through the arbitrary and unlawful termination and the unfair administrative action all of which contravened her right to dignity guaranteed under Article 28 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. She averred that coupled with the absence of notice and the denial of a hearing, the Respondents failed and/or refused to pay her terminal dues or issue her with a Certificate of service. She added that the Respondents further failed to pay sitting allowances due to her for the period, 1 st November 2017 to 3 rd January 2024, that she served as a member of the WRC Safari Rally Organizing Committee; together with allowances due for local travels to Naivasha, and international assignments to Burundi.
9. She averred that she diligently followed up on these reimbursements during her employment and duly submitted all the requisite supporting documents for payment, but no settlement was ever made. She further averred that she did not have access to copies of those documents, as she was denied entry into her office on the day of termination of her employment and consequently could not retrieve any documents. She also averred that for certain trips, including those to Burundi and Naivasha, she was not paid per diem prior to travel, having been informed that the 2 nd Respondent lacked funds at the time and that payment would be made subsequently, which never occurred.
10. Additionally, she averred that she was never paid her accrued and untaken leave days, yet she only proceeded on leave for a period of two weeks during the entire period of her employment.
11. On gratuity, she averred that she had been following up on it since October 2023. That consequent to failure to receive payments, she together with other ex-secretariat members escalated the matter to the President of the Republic of Kenya, Dr. William Samoei Ruto, EGH, vide a letter dated 12 th March 2024. She averred further that they also wrote to the 2 nd Respondent Chief Executive Officer vide a letter dated 11 th June 2024 and did a follow up vide a letter dated 24 th September 2024.
12. She averred that they jointly petitioned the National Assembly seeking intervention regarding their unpaid dues but all these efforts bore no fruits. Consequently, she was constrained to issue a formal demand letter dated 21 st July 2025, to the 1 st Respondent’s Principal Secretary accompanied by a Notice of Intention to sue the Government dated 26 th September 2025 through her Advocates; demanding payment of compensation for unlawful termination and her terminal dues in vain. She averred that the Respondent’s illegal and oppressive actions have caused her to suffer immense emotional distress. As such, she prays for judgment against the Respondents jointly and severally for:
(a) A declaration that the revocation of the Petitioner’s appointment by the then Cabinet Secretary of the 1 st Respondent was unconstitutional.
(b) A declaration that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents’ actions violated the Petitioner’s Constitutional and Statutory rights.
(c) A declaration that the termination of the Petitioner’s employment was unfair, unlawful, and in breach of the Employment Act, 2007.
(d) Compensation for unfair termination equivalent to twelve (12) months’ gross salary: Kshs 1,972,320.
(e) One (1) month’s salary in lieu of notice: Kshs 164,360.
(f) Payment for accrued and untaken leave days:
• 7 Days in 2019 (Kshs. 5,478.67 x 7) = Kshs. 38,350.67
• 42 Days in 2020 and 2021 (Kshs. 5,478.67x 42) = Kshs. 230,104
• 42 Days in 2022 and 2023 (Kshs. 5,478.67x42) =Kshs. 230,104
Total Kshs 498,558.67
(g) Vehicle service reimbursement: Kshs 20,000.
(h) Travel reimbursement: Kshs 975,000.
(i) Gratuity (Kshs. 2,004,038.40)
(j) Sitting allowances due to her for the period she served as a member of the WRC Safari Rally Organizing Committee being 1 st November 2017 to 3 rd January 2024.
(k) A Certificate of Service pursuant to Section 51 of the Employment Act, 2007.
(l) Costs of this suit.
(m) Interest on (d) to (j) above at court rates from the date of filing until payment in full.
(n) Any other or further relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to grant.
13. The Respondents opposed the Petition vide their Replying Affidavit sworn by Dennis Kinyua, the 2 nd Respondent’s Director of Human Resource Management, on 10 th February 2026. He acknowledged that the Petitioner was engaged by the World Rally Championship (WRC) Safari Rally Kenya Secretariat under a written fixed-term contract in the position of Project Coordinator - Event Secretary, with the initial engagement commencing on 1 st November 2017 and subsequent engagements thereafter. He stated that the Petitioner's final contract was a fixed-term engagement which clearly stipulated its expiry date as 31 st December 2023; and the same was neither terminated prematurely nor unlawfully ended. He stated that the engagements were not structured as annually renewable contracts but were expressly dependent on the availability of funds and approval of relevant budgetary allocations, a fact well known and acknowledged by the Petitioner at the time of execution of the contracts.
14. He stated that upon expiry of the Petitioner's final contract on 31 st December 2023, no renewal was effected as the contractual relationship had lawfully come to an end by effluxion of time. He denied the allegation that the Petitioner's employment was unlawfully terminated adding that the Petitioner had no legitimate expectation of renewal, the terms of the fixed-term contract having been clear and voluntarily accepted. He added that vide Gazette Notice No. 1769 dated 16 th February 2024, the Cabinet Secretary for Sports was mandated to constitute the WRC Safari Rally Secretariat, where new appointment letters were issued and the Petitioner was not amongst them.
15. He termed the issuance of the said Gazette Notice and subsequent appointments a lawful exercise of statutory and administrative authority that did not amount to revocation of any of the Petitioner’s subsisting appointment, as her contract had already expired. He stated that the Respondents deny any unfair, unreasonable or unlawful administrative action on account that all decisions complied with constitutional and statutory requirements.
16. On the alleged terminal benefits, the affiant stated that the Petitioner's contract did not provide for gratuity since she was duly enrolled under the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) in compliance with statutory requirements. He stated that the Petitioner’s contracts sufficiently evidence her period of service and further provides that letters of recommendation are available upon request. He denied any claims of notice pay and unpaid accrued leave days, on ground that the contract was not unlawfully terminated and no leave application was ever unlawfully denied. He contended that the Petition was misconceived and an abuse of the court process and prayed that it be dismissed with costs.
17. In rejoinder, the Petitioner, in her Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 10 th May 2026 deposed that she obtained a contract that was issued to a former colleague which contained a gratuity clause, whereas hers did not. She added that the contract is proof that of the Respondents’ discriminatory and inconsistent application of employment benefits among employees during her tenure.
18. In a Further Affidavit sworn on 2oth May 2026, the Petitioner deposed that she obtained a copy of notice of non-renewal of contract dated 29 th April 2026, sent to a former colleague, indicating reasons for non-renewal of contract. She stated that the letter indicated the 2 nd Respondent’s knowledge of its obligation to issue such notices with reasons prior to the termination of employment. She termed the failure to be issued with such notice as deliberate, unfair, discriminatory and contrary to the Respondent’s practice. She denied the averment that her renewal was subject to availability of funds, stating that the project was always sponsored by the government and private sector sponsors, and no such budgetary issues were raised by the Respondents. She added that the fact that there were new recruitments further negated the allegation of unavailability of funds.
Submissions
19. The Petitioner raised the following issues for determination: (i) whether revocation of the Petitioner’s appointment by the then Cabinet Secretary of the 1 st Respondent was unconstitutional; (ii) whether the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents’ actions violated the Petitioner’s rights under Articles 28, 41, 43 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act and Section 41,43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007; (iii) whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to damages for violation of her constitutional rights and terminal dues, allowances and compensation as prayed for,(iv) who should bear the costs of the suit?
20. On the first issue, the Petitioner questioned why she was denied a chance to serve the four-year term of her appointment. In arguing that she was not granted notice and reasons for her revocation, reliance was placed on the decision in Kenya Airports Authority v Mitu-Bell Welfare Society & 2 others [2016] KECA 432 (KLR) where the court emphasized that:
“The constitutional and statutory provisions on fair administrative action must be adhered to.”
21. On the doctrine of legitimate expectations counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s holding in Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v. Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others, [2014] eKLR where the court outlined the elements of legitimate expectations as follows:
“a) there must be an express, clear and unambiguous promise given by a public authority;
b) the expectation itself must be reasonable;
c) the representation must be one which it was competent and lawful for the decision-maker to make; and
d) there cannot be a legitimate expectation against clear provisions of the law or the Constitution”
22. Counsel submitted that the Petitioner’s expectation that she would serve until 1 st August 2026, arose from the express and unequivocal four-year appointment communicated through Gazette Notice No. 9336 of 2022 issued by the Cabinet Secretary acting within their lawful mandate. It was urged that the expectation was not abstract or subjective, but grounded in a clear and demonstrable pattern of conduct by the Respondents. Reliance was placed on the reasoning in In re Westminster City Council [1986] A.C. 668 , affirmed that:
“Legitimate expectation” is a doctrine well recognized within the realm of administrative law, as is clear from the English case, In re Westminster City Council, [1986] A.C. 668 at 692(Lord Bridge):…
the courts have developed a relatively novel doctrine in public law that a duty of consultation may arise from a legitimate expectation of consultation aroused either by a promise or by an established practice of consultation”…………..
Wade and Forsyth in their work, Administrative Law, 10th ed (pages 446-448), discuss the relevant legal principles on legitimacy of an expectation. For an expectation to be legitimate, it must be founded upon a promise or practice by the public authority, that is said to be bound to fulfil the expectation”
23. The Court’s attention was drawn to the decision in Keen Kleeners Limited v Kenya Plantation and Agricultural workers’ Union [2021] KECA 352 (KLR) where the Court of Appeal held that:
“The trial Court had a sound basis for reaching his conclusion that a legitimate expectation for renewal was created. The long standing, uninterrupted and consistent practice of renewing or extending the grievants’ contracts would have surely led the grievants to believe that their last contracts would be renewed, more so in the absence of any reasonable notice to the contrary given to them by the appellant”
24. Counsel added that the abrupt revocation of her appointment without notice, reasons or a hearing, amounted to an unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional exercise of administrative power. The same was termed as an arbitrary action that was substantively and procedurally unfair, unreasonable, disproportionate, and in abuse of power and discretion, contrary to Section 7(2)(c), (j), (k), (n), and (o) of the Fair Administrative Action Act and Section 7(2)(m) of the Fair Administrative Action Act which renders unfair any administrative action that violates a person’s legitimate expectation. Counsel termed the revocation as arbitrary, unlawful, unconstitutional, and void ab initio .
25. On the second issue, relying on the letter dated 25 th June 2019, it was submitted that it was established practice under the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents’ engagement framework that employees would at times work before formal written contracts were subsequently issued. It was contended that upon the lapse of the last written contract on 31 st December 2023, the Petitioner remained actively engaged in official duties assigned to her by the 2 nd Respondent, as a month to month employee; more so since she was never issued with any notice of non-renewal to indicate that her contract would not be renewed. It was urged that her termination therefore ought to have been in strict adherence of the law.
26. On substantive fairness, reliance was placed on Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007 and the decision in Kamendi v Kenya Breweries Limited [2023] KECA 1210 (KLR).
27. On procedural fairness, reliance was placed on Section 41 of the Employment Act and a catena of caselaw including the decision in Gichuru v Package Insurance Brokers Ltd [2021] KESC 12 (KLR), to urge that the Respondents’ actions were in blatant violation of Article 41(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 for want of procedural and substantive fairness.
28. On the fundamentality of human dignity, reliance was placed on decision in Attorney General v Kituo Cha Sheria & 7 others [2017] KECA 773 (KLR). It was submitted that the Petitioner denied entry into her workplace without explanation which was humiliating and in violation of her dignity. To buttress the submission, reliance was placed on the decision in Kenya County Government Workers’ Union v County Government of Nyeri & Another (2015) KEELRC 100 (KLR) where it was held that:
“Under Article 28 of the Constitution, the employees have inherent dignity and the right to have that dignity respected and protected. Removing the employees from employment without good reason would be in contravention of that inherent human dignity”
29. It was submitted that the continued withholding of the Petitioner’s accrued economic entitlements amounted to a continuing violation of her constitutionally protected socio-economic rights under Article 43 of the Constitution of Kenya,2010.
30. On the third issue, counsel submitted that the Court was empowered under Article 23(3) of the Constitution of Kenya,2010, Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, and Section 49 of the Employment Act, 2007 to grant appropriate reliefs including awards compensation and declaratory orders. The Court was therefore urged to award compensation equivalent to twelve (12) months’ salary. Reliance was placed on the decision in Elizabeth Wakanyi Kibe v Telkom Kenya Ltd [2014] KECA 765 (KLR) where the court quoted Southern Highlands Tobacco -vs- McQueen (1960) EA 490, where it was held that:
“A person wrongfully dismissed is entitled to be compensated fully for the financial loss he suffers as a result of his dismissal, subject to the qualification that it is his duty to do what he can to mitigate his loss.”
31. On accrued leave days, it was submitted that the Petitioner took two weeks leave across her employment period and thus, was entitled to the remainder.
32. On sitting allowance, it was submitted that she was entitled to sitting allowances accrued from attending meetings and performance of official functions.
33. On gratuity, it was submitted that she was entitled to the same as it was evident that she was arbitrarily excluded without any lawful or justifiable cause. Reliance was placed on Article 27 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Employment Act. For vehicle service and travel reimbursement, it was submitted that the Petitioner was entitled to the same from assignments undertaken on behalf of the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents. Counsel urged that the petitioner did not have copies of the documents as she was denied entry into her office to retrieve them.
On Certificate of Service, reliance was placed on Section 51 of the Employment Act. On the last issue, reliance was placed on Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and the decision in Capital Fish Kenya Limited v The Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited [2016] KECA 56 (KLR). The Court was urged to allow the Petition in its entirety.
34. The Respondents isolated the following issues arise for determination: (i) whether the Petitioner’s employment lawfully expired by effluxion of time; (ii) whether the Petitioner had a legitimate expectation of renewal of contract or appointment; (iii) whether the Respondents violated the Petitioner’s constitutional and statutory rights; and (iv) whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought.
35. Counsel submitted that it was not in dispute that the Petitioner was engaged on a fixed-term contract; the last contract having expressly provided for commencement on 1 st January 2023 and expiry on 31 st December 2023. It was added that the said contract was clear, definite and self-terminating upon lapse of time. It was contended that the law is settled that a fixed-term contract terminates automatically upon expiry without the necessity of notice unless otherwise expressly provided. Counsel submitted that the Petitioner was fully aware of the contractual tenure and voluntarily executed the contract with full knowledge of its terms. It was further submitted that expiry of a fixed-term contract did not amount to termination capable of attracting remedies for unfair termination under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. It was contended that the Petitioner’s contention that she continued rendering services in January 2024 did not alter the legal position.
36. Counsel reiterated that the Cabinet Secretary, vide Gazette Notice No. 1769 dated 16 th February 2024, constituted a new Secretariat and issued fresh appointments and the Petitioner was not among those appointed. It was added that such appointments fell within the lawful administrative discretion of the appointing authority and could be challenged merely because the Petitioner expected reappointment. Counsel urged that the doctrine of legitimate expectations could arise contrary to express contractual terms, since the Petitioner’s contract expressly stipulated an end date, with no provision for renewal. It was submitted that no constitutional violation has been established. It was urged that the allegations on denial of office access remain unsubstantiated and cannot elevate a contractual employment matter into a constitutional claim. Counsel added that the Employment Act sufficiently regulated employment disputes and the Petitioner could not constitutionalize a contractual dispute merely to obtain constitutional remedies.
It is submitted that the Petitioner was not entitled to compensation for unfair termination or payment in lieu of notice as there was no premature termination of employment. In denying the claim for gratuity benefits reliance was placed on decision in National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Pipeplastic Samkolit (K) Ltd & Another Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2001 KLR 112 (2002) EA 503 to submit that parties are bound by terms freely agreed upon and courts cannot rewrite contracts on their behalf.
Counsel added that there was no evidence of rejected leave application or proof of unpaid claims duly approved under internal procedures and the Petitioner bore the evidentiary burden of strict proof regarding accrued leave and reimbursements. It was submitted that the Petitioner had failed to establish any unlawful termination, constitutional violation or entitlement to the reliefs sought. Counsel urged that the Petition was misconceived, legally untenable and an abuse of the Court process and prayed for its dismissal with costs.
Analysis and determination
It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was employed by the 2 nd respondent effective 1 st November 2017 under a fixed term contract dated 28 th June 2019, as a Project Coordinator at Kshs.161,080 per month.
The petitioner indicated the dates of signing of the contract as 29 th August 2019. Clearly, the written contract was backdated to 1 st November 2017. Similarly, vide Gazette Notice No. 12088 dated 8 th December 2017, the petitioner was appointed Secretary of the Steering Committee (SC) and Organizing Committee (OC) for the WRC Safari Rally Project chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, Sports Culture and Arts for a term of three (3) years from 1 st November 2017. A letter dated 31 st August 2019, the Petitioner’s employment was extended from 1 st September 2019 to 30 th April 2020 and the Petitioner signed the contract on 3 rd September 2019.
Relatedly, by a contract dated 30 th April 2010, the petitioner contract was extended from 1 st May 2020 to 31 st August 2020. The petitioner signed the contract on 4 th May, 2020 and vide Gazette Notice No. 1964, the Cabinet Secretary appointed the petitioner the Secretary of the Steering Committee and organizing Committee of the WRC Safari Rally Project for 3 years from 1 st March 2020 to organize the Safari Rally, 2020, 2021 and 2022.
In a similar vein, vide a contract signed by the petitioner on 31 st August 2020 the 2 nd Respondent employed the petitioner as the Project Co-ordinator Event Secretary effective 1 st September 2020 to 28 th February 2022.
By a contract dated 28 th February 2022 the 2 nd Respondent offered the petitioner employment as Project Co-ordination effective 1 st March 2022 to 31 st December 2022. The petitioner indicated by hand that she would commence work on 1 st March 2022 but did not indicate the date when she signed the contract.
By Gazette Notice No. 9336 of 5 th August 2022 the Cabinet Secretary revoked the earlier Gazette Notices No. 12088 of 2017 and 1965 of 2020 under which the petitioner had served as Secretary WRC Steering Committee and Organizing Committees.
Finally, vide a contract dated 20 th December 2022, the 2 nd Respondent employed the petitioner as Project Co-ordinator -Event Secretary effective 1 st January 2023 to 31 st December 2023 at a consolidated salary of Kshs.164,360 per month. The petitioner signed the contract on 20 th December 2022 but did not indicate when she would commence work. The effective date was 1 st January 2023. No other written contract was availed by the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that the termination of employment on 3 rd January 2024 was unfair, unlawful and in violation of Article 41 of the Constitution of Kenya in that no reasons or notice was given for the termination.
The petitioner is also contesting the revocation of her appointment as the Secretary of the Steering Committee and Organizing Committee of the WRC Safari Rally Project by the Cabinet Secretary vide Gazette Notice No. 9336 of 5 th August 2022. First the appointment did not constitute an employment contract and no remunerative benefit appear to have been provided to constitute a salary.
Typically, members of committees are paid by way of allowances determined by the appointing authority at its discretion, as it is not a fulltime activ
[...truncated]