Format/Structure of a Demand Letter

DEMAND LETTER

A demand letter is a formal notice demanding that the addressee perform a legal obligation on specified terms and within a specified time.

The demand letter usually gives the recipient a chance to perform the legal obligation without being taken to Court.

It is sent before the commencement of a suit it serves to inform the adversary of the pending claim.

The purpose of a demand letter and any other notices prior to commencement of a suit is to afford both parties an opportunity to avoid embarking on unnecessary litigation or incurring any additional costs.

Where it is excluded, a party may not be able to claim for costs in the suit.

A demand letter is provided for in Order 3 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.

A demand letter should be signed by an Advocate meaning that it cannot be drawn by an unqualified person.

Contents of a Demand Letter.

• A date, recipient’s contact information
• The authority to act for the claimant
• The summary of the matter in issue
• A demand for a specified relief
• A deadline by which the matter must be settled
• Consequences of non-adherence to the demand of claim.
  

 

GENERAL FORMAT:

1. Letter head of the firm (optional)

2. Our REF - YOUR REF

3. Address of the Defendant

4. Date

5. Dear Sir/Madame

6. Subject Matter: RE (to be precise and concise)

7. Introduction: 

a) authority to act from clients instructions

b) Facts

c) cause of action arising from the facts

8. Demand for relief/remedy

9. Ask for liability to be admitted

10. Specify time within which you seek compliance (7 days within Nbi, 10 daysoutside)

11. Consequences for non adherence to time line

12. Authenticate letter

13. CC. Client

(acronym:LOAD DS IDA SCAC) - you can make your own

BILL OF COSTS: STEP BY STEP GUIDE ON DRAFTING A BILL OF COSTS

What is it?

Generally, the party who is successful in a High/Subordinate Court proceeding may ask the court for an order that the unsuccessful party pay their costs. These costs are commonly referred to as “party/party” costs. The “costs” are to partially indemnify a person for the legal costs incurred by them or the time spent prosecuting or defending a court proceeding. The costs are then, based on the tariff set out in the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, (specific Year)
All court related civil matters are said to be litigation matters and the law sets the minimum fees. The mechanism of charging fees is different in the High Court with subordinate courts having a separate scale of fees. In civil litigation, there are two distinct methods of determining fees and these are said to be ‘party and party’ fees and ‘advocate and client’ fees.
 

Before the hearing
The party who was awarded costs will prepare their bill following regulations of each set of rules under the advocates remuneration order of a specified year. The Tariff sets out items involved in prosecuting/defending a proceeding and assigns a number of units or sets a prescribed amount of costs for each of these events. In civil matters, some of the items show a range of units; others are fixed depending on how long the event took. If there is a range, the number of units awarded is based on the work done within the description of the items covered under a particular tariff item. The bill will also include a list of disbursements. A copy of the bill is served on all affected parties. If a party does not agree with the amount of the bill, a hearing to assess the costs must be arranged before a registrar. A date for the hearing is obtained from Supreme Court Scheduling in the court registry where the proceeding originated or the registry where all parties have agreed the costs assessment should take place.

At the hearing
The onus is on the party who was awarded costs to prove their bill. This means they must produce proof of work done and disbursements incurred. If proof is not given, the items may be disallowed. This is often done by producing at the hearing copies of the pleadings, any interim orders made, notices to admit and the like. The party presenting the bill of costs for assessment may make an affidavit setting out the work done, as well as an affidavit of disbursements. Sometimes, a party testifies in court, at the assessment hearing itself. The opposing party must be prepared to tell the registrar why they object to disputed items and disbursements on the bill. The assessment is conducted like any other court hearing. The person presenting the bill of costs goes first, the opposing party then makes their objections and then the party awarded costs has a right of reply. Sometimes the registrar will rule on the tariff items before turning to the disbursements but usually, the registrar will deal with all matters and provide their decision at the conclusion of the hearing. If the opposing party does not appear, proof of service of the appointment (i.e. an affidavit of service) is required.
 

Mode of charging
Party and party’ costs are based on the principle that the unsuccessful party in any case must, unless the court otherwise orders for good reason, pay the successful party. After a matter is finalized, the successful party and the losing party may agree on the costs to be paid. Failure to this, a Resident Magistrate of any designation who has been gazetted as a Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the High Court can adjudicate upon the quantum of fees between opposing parties or between an advocate and client.
The Magistrate (in his capacity as Taxing Officer), decides on all matters of fees. The taxing officer’s decision is appealable to the High Court and the Court of Appeal. And what are ‘advocate and client fees? In a concluded matter, the minimum advocate/client fees is that assessed by the taxing officer increased by one half. An unsuccessful litigant pays the opposing side and his own lawyers’ costs and in the same breath the winning side’s lawyer gets fees from the losing party and his own client. Every single aspect of costing is provided for by law, from writing a letter, perusing it to appearances in court. But the ‘instruction fees’ are based on the value of the subject matter, and whether the matter is defended or undefended.
For step by step guidance on preparation of a Bill of costs in Kenya and samples please consult through the mail.

Termination of a Contract, Benefits and Wages (Labour Law)

1.0 Key Areas

• Termination of a Contract
• Termination of a Contract and Benefits and Wages
• Termination of a Contract and Labour Laws in Kenya

2.0 Introduction

Termination of employment can be initiated by either of the parties to a contract of employment (Employment Act, section 35 (1)). Lawful termination of employment under common law includes:

• Termination of employment by agreement: When the employer and employee agree to bring a contract of employment to an end following an agreement. This may be in case of terminating a contract of apprenticeship; where the period of training expires then the contract will obviously come to an end.
• Automatic termination: A contract of employment may be terminated automatically in circumstances such as death or loss of business of the employer.
• Termination of employment by the employee/resignation: This happens when an employee due to material breach of the contract by the employer decides to resign from his/her employment.
• Termination of employment by an employer: An employer may also terminate the employment of an employee but there is a need to comply with the provisions of the law and contract relating to termination. 

3.0 On what grounds can a contract of employment be terminated by an employer?

A contract of employment may be terminated by an employer on the following grounds:

• By mutual agreement between the employer and the worker (Industrial Training Act, section 13 (1) (a)).
• By the employer when the employee dies before the expiration of the period of employment.
• By the employer, if the worker is found by a medical examination to be unfit for employment. Due to sickness or accident, the employee becomes unable to carry out his or her work (Employment Act, section 41(1)).
• By the employer based on the misconduct of employee (Employment Act, section 44 (3)) 

4.0 What should an employer do if he or she wants to terminate a contract of employment?

A contract of employment may be terminated at any time by an employer who must give the employee a period of notice of termination (e.g. at the close of day in case of a contract for daily wages, one month or more in case of monthly pay contracts). 

5.0 What form of notice should I give as an employer?

A termination notice shall be in writing. In case the employee does not understand the notice, the employer is responsible to ensure that the notice is explained orally to the worker in a language he/she understands (section 35 (2) (3)).  

• If the employee is employed on a daily wage contract, the notice is given at the close of any day without notice. 
• If the employee is employed on a weekly pay or two-week basis the notice period shall be one week or two weeks respectively, given in writing or payment of one week’s salary in place of notice.
• If the employee is employed every month the notice period shall be 28 days and in writing or payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice.
• In the case where a contract of employment provides that the notice of termination be given for a greater period than one month, then there will be agreed in writing between employer and employee for a longer notice and the agreed notice period shall be of equal duration for both employer and the employee (section 35 (2)). 

6.0 Can an employer terminate an employee immediately without allowing them to work during the notice period? Does the law allow this?

In the event, the employer wants to terminate an employee without allowing her/him to serve the notice period the employer will be required to pay the employee the amount that an employee would have received if she/he had worked during the notice period. This is what is usually referred to as payment in lieu of notice (section 36) also (section 38). 

Section 36 provides for payment of equivalent salary in place of notice instead of serving the notice. The length of notice will depend on the interval at which the salary is paid.

7.0 What happens if an employee is terminated but they have outstanding leave they have not taken?

In the case of accrued leave upon termination the employer shall pay an employee on a pro-rata basis an amount in cash for the accrued annual leave to which that employee is entitled (section 40 (1) (e)) - provided that it is taken not later than six months after the end of leave cycle or twelve months after the end of leave cycle if (if the employee consented or extension is justified by operational requirements) (section 28(4)). 

8.0 Can an employer terminate a contract of employment without notice?

Yes. Either party to a contract of employment may terminate the contract without notice if that party pays the other party a sum equal to the amount of remuneration which would have accrued to the worker during the period of the notice (section 36).

9.0 Is a certificate of service and notice mandatory even when terminated on misconduct?

Yes. Both are mandatory regardless of the reason for termination unless the period of service of the employee to the employer has lasted less than four weeks (section 51). 

10.0 Four grounds that justify termination of the employment by the employer

• Misconduct.
• Physical incapacity.
• Poor performance.
• Employer’s operational requirements/retrenchment. 

An employer may also terminate an employee due to participation in an illegal strike. Therefore for an employer to terminate an employee he/she should have a genuine reason as specified in section 45 (2) and section 46. An employee cannot be fired because an employer does not like them - unless the grounds for this dislike are based on the above-mentioned factors.

11.0 What amounts to fair terms termination of employment?

For termination to be fair in the eyes of the law, it has to be both substantively and procedurally fair. The employer needs to have a valid and fair reason for termination. 

Apart from this valid reason of termination, the employer must follow fair procedures for termination as are provided under the Employment Act, section 45 (2) and section 46.). In any form of termination, the employer is required to prove the reasons for the termination otherwise it will be termed as unfair (section 45 (2)). The procedures for termination are different depending on the reason for termination but they all have a common item - the right of an employee to be heard before a termination decision is taken against an employee (section 41 (2)).

12.0 Am I to follow the procedure for termination even in cases where an employee is caught red-handed committing serious misconduct, for example, stealing?

Yes. Notwithstanding the serious misconduct of the employee, and the evidence available, the law requires that procedures outlined under the law be followed. Failure to follow the procedure will amount to summary dismissal, meaning an employee is terminated without being availed of an opportunity to defend herself/himself before a fair disciplinary committee. In labor laws, summary dismissal amounts to unfair termination with consequences specified in section 47 and 49 (1) & (3).

Can I terminate an employee who is facing a criminal charge before a court of law?

No one can terminate or take disciplinary action against an employee who is facing the same charges before a court of law unless the two charges are different or do not arise in the same cause of action. 

What are the likely consequences of unfair termination for an employer?

If the labor officer makes the decision that the summary dismissal or the termination of the contract of an employee is unjustified, he may recommend to the employer to pay the employee any or all of the following:

• The wages which the employee would have earned had the employee been given the period of notice to which he was entitled under this Act or his contract of service. 
• Where dismissal terminates the contract before the completion of any service upon which the employee’s wages became due, the proportion of the wage due for the period of time for which the employee has worked; and any other loss consequent upon the dismissal and arising between the date of dismissal and the date of expiry of the period of notice referred to in paragraph (a) which the employee would have been entitled to by virtue of the contract.
• The equivalent of several months’ wages or salary not exceeding twelve months based on the gross monthly wage or salary of the employee at the time of dismissal.
• Alternatively, the employer may have to reinstate the employee and treat the employee in all respects as if the employees' employment had not been terminated; or 
• Re-engage the employee in work comparable to that in which the employee was employed before his/her dismissal, or other reasonably suitable work, at the same wage.
•  
•  
• For PDF Version of notes just send a request mail to ---gechangazacharia@gmail.com---

Principle of Unreasonableness - Kenyan Case Study: Keroche Industries Limited vs. Kenya Revenue Authority & 5 Others

Judicial Review in Kenya: The Keroche Industries Case and the Limits of Retrospective Taxation

Keywords: Judicial Review in Kenya, Keroche Industries, Kenya Revenue Authority, Legitimate Expectation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Administrative Law, Tax Law, Rule of Law, Retrospective Taxation, Constitutional Law.

Introduction

The relationship between taxpayers and revenue authorities is founded not only on statutory obligations but also on the constitutional principles of fairness, legality, transparency, and accountability. While the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) is empowered to assess and collect taxes, that mandate must always be exercised within the confines of the law.

The landmark decision in Keroche Industries Limited v Kenya Revenue Authority & 5 Others remains one of Kenya's most authoritative decisions on judicial review and administrative law. The High Court held that public authorities cannot exercise statutory powers arbitrarily or retrospectively where doing so undermines legitimate expectations and violates the rule of law.

The judgment has become a leading authority on the doctrines of legitimate expectation, administrative fairness, proportionality, abuse of power, and the celebrated Wednesbury principle of reasonableness established in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.

For businesses, investors, tax practitioners, and public institutions alike, the case continues to define the constitutional limits of governmental decision-making.

The Background of the Dispute

Keroche Industries Limited was licensed by the Customs Department in the late 1990s to manufacture fortified wines. Following approval by the relevant tax authorities, its products were classified under Tariff Heading 22.04, attracting excise duty at the applicable rate of 45%.

For approximately nine years, the company operated its business, priced its products, and paid taxes in accordance with this tariff classification. During this period, KRA consistently accepted the classification without objection.

In November 2006, however, KRA informed the company that its products had allegedly been incorrectly classified and ought instead to have fallen under Tariff Heading 22.06, attracting a significantly higher tax rate of 60%.

Rather than applying the revised classification prospectively, KRA reassessed Keroche's tax liability retrospectively for the years 2002 to 2005 and demanded payment of approximately Kshs. 1.1 billion within fourteen days.

The company challenged the decision through judicial review proceedings before the High Court.

The Legal Issues Before the Court

The Court was invited to determine several significant questions of administrative law, including:

• Whether judicial review was available despite the existence of alternative statutory tax dispute mechanisms.
• Whether KRA could lawfully apply a revised tariff classification retrospectively.
• Whether the taxpayer had acquired a legitimate expectation arising from KRA's longstanding conduct.
• Whether the retrospective tax demand constituted an abuse of statutory discretion.
• Whether the decision satisfied the standards of reasonableness established under the Wednesbury doctrine.

Each of these issues has had a lasting influence on Kenyan public law.

Judicial Review and the Right to Access the Courts

KRA argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because Keroche had failed to exhaust the available tax dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the Court.

The High Court rejected this argument.

The Court recognised that while statutory tribunals ordinarily provide the primary avenue for resolving specialised disputes, judicial review remains available where public authorities exercise power unlawfully or in violation of constitutional principles.

The Court emphasised that access to justice is a constitutional safeguard that cannot be curtailed merely because an alternative statutory procedure exists. Where the legality, fairness, or rationality of administrative action is under challenge, the High Court retains supervisory jurisdiction.

This principle has since become central to Kenyan administrative law and continues to guide courts when determining whether exceptional circumstances justify bypassing statutory remedies.

Legitimate Expectation: Protecting Public Confidence

One of the most enduring contributions of the Keroche decision is its comprehensive treatment of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

For nearly a decade, KRA had consistently accepted the applicant's tariff classification. The company had invested significant capital, structured its operations, developed pricing models, and prepared long-term business projections based on the understanding that the classification had been approved by the tax authority.

The Court held that this conduct gave rise to a legitimate expectation deserving of legal protection.

Although public authorities may correct genuine administrative mistakes, they must do so fairly and prospectively unless legislation expressly authorises retrospective action.

Businesses should not bear the financial consequences of governmental inconsistency where they have acted in good faith upon official representations.

The doctrine therefore serves not merely to protect private interests but also to preserve public confidence in governmental decision-making.

Retrospective Taxation and the Rule of Law

The Court was particularly critical of KRA's attempt to impose tax liabilities retrospectively.

Retrospective taxation creates uncertainty because it alters legal consequences after taxpayers have already arranged their affairs in reliance upon the existing legal position.

The Court observed that certainty is an indispensable component of the rule of law.

Investors require predictable legal and regulatory environments to make commercial decisions. If public authorities could revisit settled tax positions years later, businesses would operate under perpetual uncertainty.

The Court therefore concluded that retrospective application of the revised tariff was:

• irrational;
• unreasonable;
• arbitrary;
• oppressive;
• discriminatory;
• procedurally unfair;
• an abuse of power; and
• inconsistent with constitutional principles.

Although Parliament may expressly legislate with retrospective effect in limited circumstances, administrative agencies cannot ordinarily achieve the same result through discretionary decision-making.

The Wednesbury Principle and Administrative Reasonableness

The Court's reasoning drew extensively from the English decision in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, one of the foundational authorities on judicial review.

Lord Greene MR explained that a public authority acts unreasonably where it:

• fails to consider relevant matters;
• considers irrelevant matters;
• misdirects itself in law;
• acts arbitrarily; or
• reaches a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it.

This standard has become universally known as Wednesbury unreasonableness.

Applying those principles, the High Court concluded that KRA had exercised its discretion irrationally.

Among other considerations, the authority failed to appreciate:

• the taxpayer's long-standing reliance on the approved tariff;
• the devastating financial consequences of retrospective reassessment;
• the absence of procedural fairness; and
• the broader constitutional obligation to exercise statutory powers reasonably.

The demand for more than Kshs. 1 billion payable within fourteen days was found to exemplify administrative arbitrariness.

Abuse of Power and Proportionality

The Court also examined whether KRA's conduct amounted to an abuse of public power.

In answering that question, the Court considered:

• the abrupt reversal of the tariff classification;
• the retrospective nature of the assessment;
• the enormous financial burden imposed;
• the potential destruction of the applicant's business; and
• the absence of adequate procedural safeguards.

While acknowledging the importance of tax collection in funding public services, the Court held that revenue generation cannot justify unlawful administrative conduct.

Public authorities must pursue legitimate governmental objectives using lawful, proportionate, and procedurally fair means.

The Rule of Law and Constitutional Governance

One of the most frequently cited passages in the judgment concerns the constitutional significance of the rule of law.

The Court observed that Kenya operates under a system of limited government in which every public authority is constrained by law.

Administrative convenience cannot replace legality.

Likewise, certainty of law is indispensable to attracting investment and promoting economic development.

The Court affirmed that judicial review exists to ensure that governmental power remains accountable to constitutional standards rather than administrative preference.

Why the Decision Still Matters Today

Nearly twenty years later, the Keroche decision continues to shape Kenyan jurisprudence.

Its principles extend far beyond tax disputes.

The case is routinely cited in matters involving:

• judicial review;
• legitimate expectation;
• abuse of discretion;
• administrative fairness;
• procedural propriety;
• constitutional governance;
• proportionality;
• irrational administrative action; and
• the rule of law.

The judgment has also influenced courts interpreting Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, both of which reinforce the constitutional obligation that administrative action be lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.

Practical Lessons for Businesses

The decision offers several important lessons for businesses operating in Kenya.

Maintain complete regulatory records. Official approvals, licences, correspondence, and tax assessments may become critical evidence should disputes arise.

Act promptly. Businesses should challenge unlawful administrative decisions without delay to preserve available legal remedies.

Understand your rights. Regulatory agencies possess extensive powers, but those powers are subject to constitutional limitations and judicial oversight.

Seek specialist legal advice. Early legal intervention can often prevent disputes from escalating into significant financial liabilities.

Conclusion

The decision in Keroche Industries Limited v Kenya Revenue Authority & 5 Others remains a cornerstone of Kenyan administrative law and judicial review.

The judgment reaffirmed that governmental authority is not absolute. Public bodies must exercise statutory powers consistently with legality, fairness, rationality, proportionality, and the rule of law.

By applying the enduring principles of Wednesbury reasonableness, the High Court confirmed that retrospective administrative action—particularly where it imposes significant financial liabilities after years of official acquiescence—will rarely withstand judicial scrutiny.

For taxpayers, businesses, investors, and public authorities alike, the decision stands as a powerful reminder that constitutional governance demands more than the lawful collection of revenue. It requires that every exercise of public power be transparent, predictable, fair, and accountable.

How We Can Help

Our Public Law and Tax Disputes practice regularly advises clients on judicial review proceedings, tax assessments, administrative appeals, constitutional petitions, regulatory compliance, and disputes involving the Kenya Revenue Authority and other public bodies.

If your business is facing an unlawful administrative decision, retrospective tax assessment, or regulatory action, our team can provide strategic legal advice and robust representation to protect your rights and commercial interests.

 Disclaimer: This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before acting on any information contained in this article. No lawyer-client relationship is created by virtue of reading this publication.