Legitimate Expectation and Fixed-Term Contracts: A Narrow Opening or Doctrinal Tension? A Commentary on Mwangi v National Organization of Peer Education (NOPE) [2026] KEELRC 933 (KLR)

1. Introduction
The legal position on fixed-term contracts in Kenya has long appeared settled: such contracts terminate automatically upon expiry and do not, in themselves, give rise to claims for unfair termination. However, the decision in Mwangi v National Organization of Peer Education (NOPE) [2026] KEELRC 933 (KLR) introduces an important nuance—whether an employer’s conduct prior to expiry may create a legitimate expectation of renewal, thereby converting what appears to be a passive lapse into an active termination.

This decision raises important questions about the boundaries of employer discretion, the doctrine of legitimate expectation, and the extent to which lower courts may distinguish or develop principles alongside binding appellate authority.

2. Factual Background
The Claimant had been engaged by the Respondent under successive fixed-term contracts, the last of which was due to expire on 30 September 2022.

Shortly before the expiry date, the Respondent issued a communication indicating that the Claimant’s salary would be revised effective 1 October 2022. This communication, on its face, suggested continuity of the employment relationship beyond the contractual end date.

However, this was followed by a letter formally communicating the non-extension of the contract.

The Claimant challenged this action, arguing that:

• The Respondent’s prior communication amounted to a representation that the contract would be renewed;
• This created a legitimate expectation of continued employment; and
• The subsequent non-renewal constituted a disguised termination, undertaken without valid reason or due process.

3. The Legal Issue
The central issue before the Court was whether, in light of the Respondent’s conduct, the non-renewal of the fixed-term contract could properly be characterized as:

• A mere effluxion of time; or
• A positive act of termination attracting the protections of the Employment Act (Kenya).

4. The Court’s Determination
The Court found in favour of the Claimant, holding that the Respondent’s actions went beyond passive inaction and amounted to affirmative conduct creating a legitimate expectation of renewal.

In particular, the Court emphasized:

• The salary revision letter, which was to take effect immediately after the expiry date, as a clear indicator of intended continuity;
• The absence of any qualifying language suggesting that renewal was conditional or uncertain; and
• The inconsistency between this representation and the subsequent non-extension letter.

On this basis, the Court held that:

• The employment relationship did not simply lapse;
• The Respondent made a positive election to terminate; and
• Such termination triggered the statutory requirements of substantive justification and procedural fairness.

The failure to provide valid reasons or to follow due process rendered the termination both substantively and procedurally unfair.

5. Legitimate Expectation in Employment Context
The doctrine of legitimate expectation, more commonly associated with administrative law, has increasingly found application in employment disputes.

In this case, the Court applied the doctrine to hold that:

• Clear and unambiguous representations by an employer;
• Coupled with conduct indicating continuity;
• May create an enforceable expectation that alters the legal characterization of contract expiry.

This represents a fact-sensitive application of the doctrine, rather than a wholesale redefinition of fixed-term contract principles.

6. Tension with Court of Appeal Jurisprudence

While the decision is notable, it must be read alongside binding Court of Appeal authority.

In Registered Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of East Africa & another v Ruth Gathoni Ngotho-Kariuki [2017] KECA 194 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held that:

• Fixed-term contracts terminate automatically upon expiry; and
• Such termination does not constitute unfair dismissal.

Similarly, in Trocaire v Catherine Wambui Karuno [2018] KECA 769 (KLR), the Court of Appeal clarified that:

• Prior indications or negotiations regarding renewal do not, without more, create a legitimate expectation.

These decisions establish a clear appellate position: the default rule is that expiry is not termination, and expectations of renewal are generally insufficient to displace that rule.

7. Reconciling the Authorities

The apparent divergence can be reconciled on a narrow, fact-specific basis:

• The Court of Appeal decisions address general expectations or negotiations around renewal;
• Mwangi involves a specific, concrete representation—a salary revision effective after the expiry date.

Thus, the ELRC decision may be understood as applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation in exceptional circumstances, where the employer’s conduct crosses the threshold from mere indication to definitive assurance.

However, it does not purport to overturn or depart from binding precedent.

8. Practical Implications for Employers

This decision serves as a cautionary reminder to employers managing fixed-term contracts:

• Avoid premature or ambiguous communications suggesting renewal before a formal decision is made;
• Ensure that any discussions or proposals are clearly expressed as conditional or subject to approval;
• Align internal communications with formal contractual positions to avoid inconsistency;
• Recognize that conduct, not just formal documentation, may influence legal outcomes.

9. Conclusion
Mwangi v National Organization of Peer Education (NOPE) [2026] KEELRC 933 (KLR) highlights a narrow but महत्वपूर्ण qualification to the general rule on fixed-term contracts. While expiry by effluxion of time remains the default legal position, an employer’s clear and unequivocal conduct may, in limited circumstances, create a legitimate expectation sufficient to transform non-renewal into an unfair termination.

Nonetheless, the decision must be read cautiously and in harmony with established Court of Appeal jurisprudence. It is best understood not as a shift in principle, but as a fact-driven exception grounded in the specific representations made by the employer.

Disclaimer
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not establish, an advocate-client relationship. Readers should not act upon the information contained herein without seeking specific legal advice based on their individual circumstances. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is accepted for any errors or omissions or for any consequences arising from reliance on this publication.

Impartiality in Workplace Discipline: When Does a Disciplinary Panel Become Biased? A Commentary on Okello v Kenya Airways Limited [2026] KEELRC 1005 (KLR)

1. Introduction
Workplace disciplinary processes must not only comply with statutory requirements but must also meet the broader threshold of procedural fairness. One of the most critical—yet sometimes overlooked—elements of fairness is impartiality in the constitution of the disciplinary panel.

In Okello v Kenya Airways Limited [2026] KEELRC 1005 (KLR), the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) addressed this issue directly, offering important guidance on when a disciplinary process is rendered invalid due to bias.

2. Factual Background
The Claimant, an employee of the Respondent, challenged his dismissal on the basis that it arose from his refusal to implement procurement directives he believed to be irregular. His objection triggered disciplinary action initiated by his supervisor—the very individual who had issued the contested instructions.

A central feature of the dispute was that:

• The supervisor initiated the disciplinary process;
• The allegation of insubordination was directly linked to the Claimant’s refusal to follow that supervisor’s directives; and
• Crucially, the same supervisor sat as a member of the disciplinary panel that heard and determined the case.

The Claimant contended that this dual role fundamentally compromised the fairness of the process.

3. The Legal Issue: Bias and Procedural Fairness
The core issue before the Court was whether the participation of a complainant in the disciplinary panel amounted to procedural unfairness due to bias.

This raised a broader question: Can an employer be said to have complied with fair procedure where the process is structurally compromised, even if formal statutory steps are followed?

4. The Court’s Determination
The Court found in favour of the Claimant, holding that the disciplinary process was fatally flawed.

It emphasized that a disciplinary panel is tainted by bias where a complainant plays a substantive role in adjudicating the dispute. In this case, the supervisor’s involvement created:

• A real likelihood of bias; and
• A clear conflict of interest.

The Court rejected the notion that procedural compliance alone—such as adherence to statutory steps—was sufficient. Even though the employer appeared to comply with the requirements of Section 41 of the Employment Act (Kenya), the integrity of the process was undermined by the lack of impartiality.

5. The Test for Bias: Beyond Actual Prejudice
Importantly, the Court’s reasoning aligns with established principles of natural justice. The applicable test is not whether bias was actually proven, but whether there exists a reasonable apprehension or real likelihood of bias.

By sitting on the panel, the supervisor effectively became:

• Complainant (initiating the allegations), and
• Judge (participating in their determination).

This dual role is inherently incompatible with the requirement of fairness.

6. Implications for Employers and HR Practice

This decision has significant implications for disciplinary procedures in Kenya:

6.1 Separation of Roles is Essential
Employers must ensure a clear institutional separation between:

• Investigators or complainants; and
• Decision-makers.

Any overlap risks invalidating the entire process.

6.2 Procedural Compliance is Not Enough
Adherence to statutory requirements—such as issuing notices and conducting hearings—does not cure structural defects in the process. Fairness must be substantive, not merely formal.

6.3 Panel Composition Must Be Carefully Considered
Disciplinary panels should be constituted in a manner that guarantees neutrality. Individuals with prior involvement in the matter should not participate in adjudication.

6.4 Heightened Scrutiny in Whistleblower-Type Situations
Where disciplinary action follows an employee’s objection to potentially irregular or unlawful instructions, courts may apply closer scrutiny to ensure that the process is not retaliatory in nature.

7. Broader Jurisprudential Significance
The decision reinforces a growing body of Kenyan jurisprudence emphasizing fair process over procedural formality. It affirms that the right to a fair hearing includes the right to an impartial decision-maker—a principle deeply rooted in natural justice.

By focusing on the structural integrity of the disciplinary process, the Court signals that fairness must be embedded in both procedure and composition.

8. Conclusion
Okello v Kenya Airways Limited [2026] KEELRC 1005 (KLR) provides a clear and practical rule: a disciplinary process is fundamentally compromised where the complainant participates in determining the outcome.

For employers, the lesson is straightforward but critical—justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. Ensuring impartiality in disciplinary panels is not a procedural luxury; it is a legal necessity.

Disclaimer
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not establish, an advocate-client relationship. Readers should not act upon the information contained herein without seeking specific legal advice based on their individual circumstances. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is accepted for any errors or omissions or for any consequences arising from reliance on this publication.