On strict adherence to due process in executive terminations: The Case of Pamba v Kenya Hospital Association for & on behalf of the Nairobi Hospital & another (Cause E614 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1776

Dr. Allan Pamba v Kenya Hospital Association for & on behalf of the Nairobi Hospital & Another [2025] KEELRC 1776 (KLR)
Judge: Hon. Justice Nzioki wa Makau
Case Number: Cause No. E614 of 2020

Parties to the Suit:

• Claimant: Dr. Allan Pamba (former CEO of Nairobi Hospital)
• Respondents:

1.      Kenya Hospital Association (owner and operator of Nairobi Hospital)

2.      Dr. Irungu Ndirangu (Chairperson of the Board, Nairobi Hospital)

Summary Background:

• Dr. Pamba was appointed CEO of Nairobi Hospital in March 2020 on a 3-year contract.
• He was suspended and eventually dismissed in October 2020.
• He claimed the dismissal was retaliatory, stemming from his opposition to irregularities in procurement and governance.
• He challenged the termination as unlawful, procedurally unfair, and a breach of contract.
•  

Brief Background:

This case arose from the termination of Dr. Allan Pamba’s contract as CEO of Nairobi Hospital by the Kenya Hospital Association. The Claimant was employed by the 1st Respondent on a three-year contract with an initial probation period of six months. The contract was to be confirmed after successful completion of the probation period.

However, in case of unsatisfactory performance, the Claimant was to be placed on enhanced performance probation period for an additional three months. The contract was terminated at the end of the six-month probation period when the Claimant allegedly had unsatisfactory performance and refused to participate in a three-month performance enhancement plan.

The Claimant alleged that the termination contract was unlawful and was instigated by the Respondent due to political reasons. He claimed that he performed well during the probation period, and his contract of employment was therefore automatically confirmed by operation of the law following the end of the six-month probation period.

He also alleged that the final evaluation of his probation that determined his alleged underperformance by the second Respondent (Dr. Irungu Ndirangu—the Board Chair) was done contrary to the hospital’s HR policy and the employment laws.

He also claimed that the special board meeting that approved his dismissal was convened in contravention of the HR policy, as review of his performance was not even on the agenda of that meeting. These allegations were confirmed by other board members and the HR manager, who were witnesses of the Claimant.

Dr. Pamba sought multiple remedies, including declaration of unfair termination, reinstatement, damages, and compensation for reputational harm. The remedy for reinstatement was, however later abandoned as the Claimant found another job during the pendency of the suit.

The Respondents, on the other hand, alleged that the termination of the Claimant’s contract was lawful and was done in accordance with the law and the Hospital’s HR policy. They claimed that the Claimant was dismissed following his refusal to engage in a performance enhancement plan due to underperformance in his probation period. 

Legal Issues:

• Whether the termination of Dr. Pamba’s employment was procedurally and substantively fair/Whether the Claimant's contract of employment was automatically confirmed
• Whether his rights under the Employment Act and the Constitution were violated/Whether the Claimant was entitled to fair procedure during termination in terms of section 41
• Whether the Respondents breached the Nairobi Hospital Board Charter.
• Whether the 2nd Respondent (Board Chair) was personally liable.
• What remedies, if any, were available to the Claimant/Whether the Claimant was entitled to compensation for his termination/Whether the Claimant was entitled to compensation for his termination

Legal Principles Applied:

• Sections 41, 43, 45, 49 & 50 of the Employment Act, 2007: Governing fair termination procedures and remedies.
• Article 41 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010: Right to fair labour practices.
• Common law principles on employment contracts and fiduciary duties.
• Consideration of the Board Charter as part of the governance framework binding the hospital.

Findings:

• Procedural Unfairness: No proper hearing or valid process was followed before Dr. Pamba was terminated.
• Substantive Unfairness: The reasons provided for termination were found to be unsubstantiated and politically motivated.
• Violation of Board Charter: The court found breaches of corporate governance standards, especially by the board chair.
• Personal Liability: The 2nd Respondent, Dr. Irungu Ndirangu, was found jointly liable due to his central role in the unlawful dismissal.
• Reputational Harm: The court recognized the significant damage to Dr. Pamba’s professional reputation.

Disposition / Judgment:

• The court declared the termination unlawful, unfair, and in bad faith.
• Awarded Dr. Pamba KES 206 million in damages for wrongful dismissal, loss of income, and reputational harm.
• The award was suspended for 30 days pending an anticipated appeal by the respondents. 

Significance/Jurisprudential impact:

• This case reinforces strict adherence to due process in executive terminations.
• Affirms that board members may be held personally liable for fiduciary breaches and misconduct.
• Sets a high standard for corporate governance and employee protections, especially in high-level positions.
• Recognizes non-monetary harm such as reputational loss as compensable.
• Section 41 of the Employment Act is coached in mandatory terms. The learned judge emphasized that section 41 of the Employment Act does not allow for ifs and buts and must be strictly adhered to by employers during termination.
• End of probation period automatically confirms an employment contract in case of non-communication by the employer- The Respondent hospital has paid hefty consequences for failure to make appropriate communications following the end of the Claimant’s probation period. Employers must therefore make necessary communications in a procedural manner to an employee in probation if they intend to take action other than confirmation of the employee’s contract. 

Legal Liability for Copyright Infringement: The Case of Rebecca Wanjiku v Christ is the Answer Ministries (CITAM) & Isaac Peter Kalua

🧾 Legal Case Brief

Case: Rebecca Wanjiku v Christ is the Answer Ministries (CITAM) & Isaac Peter Kalua
Citation: Civil Case 66 of 2020; Judgement on 21 May 2021, High Court Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Court) (Full Case)
Judge: Justice Grace Wangui Ngenye‑Macharia
Counsel: Mr Joseph Mwangi for the Plaintiff; Miss Mwangi for the Defendants

1. Facts

• Plaintiff: Rebecca Wanjiku, registered copyright owner of the Kikuyu gospel song “Rungu Rwa Ihiga”.
• Defendants:

1.        CITAM, a church that allegedly adapted and performed the song under the title “Athuri Mwihithe” without permission.

2.        Isaac Peter Kalua, likely involved in recording/production.

• Relief sought: Prohibitory and mandatory interlocutory injunction to restrain unauthorized performance, distribution, production, and to compel delivery of infringing content.

2. Issues

1.        Did the Plaintiff demonstrate a prima facie case of copyright infringement?

2.        Would the Plaintiff suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction?

3.        Which party should bear the costs, pending full trial?

 

3. Applicable Law

• Section 22 & 23, Copyright Act 2001: protection of musical works; exclusive rights covering reproduction, adaptation, performance.
• Section 35: infringement triggered by unauthorized use.
• Section 38: remedies available include injunctions.
• Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358: standard for injunctive relief (strong prima facie case; balance of convenience; no adequate remedy at law)

 

4. Plaintiff’s Arguments

• Held a valid copyright, confirmed by KECOBO certificate.
• Presented a side-by-side transcript comparison, certified and translated, evidencing similarity between her song and the defendants’ version (Case).
• Cited Nonny Gathoni Njenga v Masitsa and Mrao Ltd v First American Bank, to show the threshold for prima facie is “genuine and arguable”. 
• Fled concern for irreparable harm, noting that damages are inadequate for clear breaches of copyright — supported by comparable jurisprudence. 

5. Defendants’ Arguments

• Challenged similarity, citing biblical expressions, and submitted no evidence of direct copying (Case reference).
• Argued absence of oral evidence and alleged that monetary damages would suffice—relying on Dedan Maina Warui v Safaricom (case reference).
• Claimed used common Christian phraseology, not proprietary lyrics or composition.

 

6. Court’s Analysis & Holding

• Found a prima facie case established: valid registration and transcript comparison met the threshold (refer to full case ).
• Agreed irreparable harm would result: damages inadequate in clear-cut infringement.
• Balanced convenience in Plaintiff’s favour, pending full trial.
• Consequently, granted interlocutory injunction, with costs awarded accordingly.

 

7. Legal Significance

• Strengthens copyright protection for creators in religious settings.
• Confirms requirement for affirmative proof (e.g., transcripts, certification, registration).
• Reinforces injunctive relief as the preferred remedy in clear infringement cases, as damages may not redress harm fully.
• Alerts churches and religious organisations to license or seek formal consents before adapting gospel music.

 

8. Conclusion & Next Steps

• The interlocutory injunction remains until the full trial where final remedies and potential damages will be determined.
• Parties preparing for full trial should focus on:
• Expert music evidence.
• Evidence of commercial distribution or profit.
• Proof of moral rights violation or attribution failures.

Legal Analysis on Enforceability of Parental Naming Rights – The Case of In Re Baby NWW (The Minor) [2025] KEHC 3306 (KLR)

1. Introduction

This memorandum provides a legal analysis of the decision in In Re Baby NWW (The Minor), Misc. Application E168 of 2024, with focus on the constitutional and statutory obligations of parents regarding naming a child, and the role of the Registrar of Births in enforcing identity rights.

 

2. Case Overview

In this matter, the Applicant (CKM) sought court intervention after the 1st Respondent (SW) registered their child’s name (“NWW”) unilaterally. The Applicant argued that this contravened their right to participate in naming the child, and violated the child’s right to identity.

The High Court held that both parents must be involved in naming the child and ordered the parties to agree on a joint name within 30 days, after which the Registrar would correct the birth certificate accordingly.

 

3. Legal Framework

a) Constitution of Kenya, 2010

• Article 53(1)(a): Every child has the right to a name and nationality from birth.
• Article 53(2): A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.
• Article 45(3): Parties to a marriage are entitled to equal rights at the time of the marriage, during the marriage, and at its dissolution.

b) Children Act, 2022

• Section 8(1): Every child shall have a right to a name from birth.
• Section 6(1): Parents have equal and joint parental responsibility for their child.
• Section 98: Provides for correction of names in the register of births on the basis of error or by order of the court.

c) Registration of Births and Deaths Act (Cap. 149)

• Section 10(1): Provides for re-registration of births where particulars need correction, including name changes directed by court order.

 

4. Key Judicial Findings

• The Court confirmed that both parents have equal responsibility and authority in naming their child.
• The unilateral registration by one parent was found to be contrary to the principle of shared parental responsibility and inconsistent with the Constitution.
• The child’s right to identity was considered central to the dispute, requiring corrective intervention by the Court and the Registrar.

 

5. Comparative Jurisprudence

a) In re Baby AOO [2019] eKLR

The High Court held that naming a child is a fundamental part of a child’s identity and that both parents must participate in this decision. It ordered the Registrar to reflect both names jointly chosen by the parents.

b) GMM v HNM [2018] eKLR

The Court restrained one parent from changing the child’s surname without the consent of the other parent, reaffirming that such decisions require mutual agreement.

These cases align with In Re Baby NWW and confirm the principle that courts will intervene where naming disputes infringe on either parent’s rights or the best interests of the child.

 

6. Implications and Recommendations

• Legal practitioners should counsel parents on their equal legal status in parental decision-making, including naming rights.
• The Registrar of Births must exercise caution and, where appropriate, require both parents' consent or a court order before registering or amending a child’s name.
• Parties seeking redress should:
• Document their objections promptly.
• Seek interim relief (injunctions) where unilateral action has already been taken.
• Pursue declaratory orders and administrative corrections under Section 98 of the Children Act.

 

7. Conclusion

In Re Baby NWW affirms the centrality of joint parental responsibility and the child’s right to identity under Kenyan law. It provides a framework for how courts should address unilateral acts relating to naming, and clarifies the Registrar's duties in such contexts. It stands as binding authority on birth registration disputes involving both legal and constitutional dimensions.

On the enforceability of Collective Bargaining Agreements: The Case of Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Kenya General Industries Limited

🏛️ Case Brief: KEELRC 13556 — Enforcement of CBAs

Case Name: Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Kenya General Industries Limited
Court: Employment & Labour Relations Court, Mombasa
Citation: Cause E021 of 2023, [2024] KEELRC 13556 (KLR)
Decision Date: 18 December 2024
Judge: M. Mbarũ, J (Full Case available here)

 

1. Parties

• Claimant: Kenya Engineering Workers Union (a registered trade union)
• Respondent: Kenya General Industries Limited (employer)

 

2. Procedural Context

The Union applied for interim relief to prevent execution of orders rendered against it and to challenge dismissal of its suit for failure to rely on a registered CBA.

 

3. Facts

• The Union and Employer had a Recognition Agreement and negotiated at least one CBA.
• A judgment had been issued dismissing the Union’s claim, part of which hinged on the CBA not being registered as required. 
• The Union contended its substantive rights under the CBA were enforceable and binding notwithstanding registration concerns.

 

4. Issues

1.      Can a Court grant interim relief to stay execution of judgment based on alleged CBA enforcement?

2.      Are terms of a negotiated CBA enforceable in the absence of registration?

3.      Does failure to register automatically render a CBA unenforceable?

 

5. Holdings & Reasoning

• The Court dismissed the application in limine, determining the Union failed to present sufficient basis for interim or interlocutory relief .
• It accepted the principle that, per Labour Relations Act, Sections 59–60, a CBA must be in writing, signed, and registered (within 14 days) to attain binding enforceability on parties and employees (Read More).
• Without evidence of a registered CBA, the Court held it could not enforce the instrument.

 

6. Legal Analysis

• The decision affirms statutory requirements: a CBA is not enforceable until prepared, signed by both parties, and registered with the Employment & Labour Relations Court, per Section 60 (Read More). 
• Interim relief in CBA-related disputes demands a practical demonstration of error in judgment, risk of irreparable harm, and that balance of convenience favors the Union — burdens the Applicant failed to meet .

 

7. Significance

• Reinforces that registration is a prerequisite for enforceability of CBAs under Kenyan law.
• Serves as precedent: unregistered CBAs are not enforceable, even if negotiated and signed.
• Offers guidance on interim relief standards in labour disputes — emphasizing strict requirements, especially where a prior judgment exists.

 

8. Aftermath / Related Rulings

• The Court’s reasoning aligns with other decisions like Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Kenya General Industries Ltd (E001 of 2024) (Full Case available here).
• It reflects broader jurisprudence: CBAs become binding only upon registration, confirming obligations extend uniformly to all unionisable employees from execution and registration date (Read More).

 

9. Practical Takeaways

• Union negotiators must ensure timely registration of CBAs to secure enforceability.
• Before seeking interim relief, applicants must demonstrate strong merits, risk of irreparable harm, and a balance in their favor.
• Employers can lawfully dismiss non-registered CBA claims from employees pending registration.

 Reach out to our team of Advocates by dropping your comments through our "Comment" Section on this platform.