Doctor Awarded KSh3.5 Million After Court Finds Pregnancy Discrimination in Dismissal

Dr Diana Ng’endo Mburu received a redundancy notice barely two weeks after returning from maternity leave. Her employers failed to prove the redundancy was genuine or follow mandatory procedures. The court awarded her KSh3.5 million, declaring the dismissal discriminatory and unconstitutional.

A Nairobi court has ordered two companies to pay a doctor KSh3.5 million after finding that her dismissal amounted to pregnancy discrimination and unfair termination.

Justice Njagi Marete ruled that Sagitarix Limited and Checkups Medical Centre Limited failed to establish a genuine redundancy.

They also failed to follow mandatory procedures under the Employment Act.

The Employment and Labour Relations Court delivered its judgement on October 13, 2026. The case arose from Dr Mburu’s dismissal shortly after returning from maternity leave.

“The termination was both procedurally and substantively unfair,” Justice Marete declared.

The court awarded her KSh2.5 million for unfair and discriminatory termination.

It separately granted KSh750,000 for constitutional violations, alongside unpaid salary and severance pay.

The total award stands at KSh3,507,068.65, excluding interest and legal costs.

A Sudden Exit

Dr Mburu was employed as a medical doctor, earning a gross monthly salary of KSh250,000.

She proceeded on maternity leave on December 1, 2021, with an extension approved by her line manager.

She returned to work around April 1, 2022, according to the judgement.

Five days later, she received her March salary payslip. It contained an unexplained deduction of KSh88,709.28, which she reported to human resources.

Then came the redundancy notice, issued around April 14 or 15, 2022. The notice arrived barely two weeks after her return from maternity leave.

Dr Mburu argued that the redundancy concealed discrimination linked to her pregnancy and maternity status.

She also challenged the process, saying her employers had ignored mandatory legal safeguards.

The companies admitted employing her but denied discriminatory treatment and procedural unfairness.

They maintained that operational pressures had necessitated the decision.

A Weak Defence

Sagitarix and Checkups Medical Centre attributed the redundancy to falling demand for COVID-19 testing services.

They said those services had constituted a significant part of Dr Mburu’s work.

According to the companies, changing business conditions, rather than maternity status, had prompted the termination.

They also maintained that she had been awarded her terminal dues. The companies further alleged that she failed to cooperate with the handover process.

However, the judge found their explanation inadequately supported by documentary evidence.

Their defence relied on an April 14, 2022, letter citing declining demand for COVID-19 testing.

The court found no supporting financial statements, board resolutions, or other evidence demonstrating the alleged decline.

It concluded that the employers had failed to prove a genuine redundancy.

“A single self-serving letter,” the judge observed, could not establish the redundancy without supporting documentation.

The companies also failed to demonstrate that other employees faced redundancy simultaneously.

Nor did they provide evidence showing that objective selection criteria had been applied.

Their explanation therefore failed to overcome the weaknesses identified in the redundancy process.

Maternity Discrimination

Section 40(1) of the Employment Act establishes requirements governing termination on redundancy grounds.

The respondents conceded that they had not issued the statutory notices required before notifying Dr Mburu.

The judge described that admission as “fatal to the procedural limb” of their defence.

The court found that the employers had failed to demonstrate compliance with the applicable redundancy safeguards.

It then examined whether the circumstances suggested discrimination based on pregnancy or maternity status.

Section 5(3)(a) of the Employment Act prohibits discrimination on grounds including pregnancy.

Section 5(5) shifts the evidential burden once an employee establishes facts from which discrimination may be presumed.

The judge found that Dr Mburu had established a prima facie case.

“The timing,” the judge reasoned, combined with procedural failures and missing business evidence, raised a presumption of discriminatory motivation.

The companies then needed to demonstrate that legitimate operational considerations drove their decision.

They also had to show that the termination was unrelated to pregnancy or maternity status.

The judge found they had failed to discharge that burden.

The dismissal was therefore discriminatory under the Employment Act and violated constitutional protections against discrimination.

The Price Paid

The court also examined Dr Mburu’s outstanding salary and severance claims.

Her March payslip reflected an unexplained deduction of KSh88,709.28.

The employers failed to justify it, prompting the court to award KSh180,731.65 in unpaid salary after allowable deductions.

The judge also awarded KSh76,337 in pro-rated severance pay. The calculation used a daily rate of KSh8,333.33 and the service period specified in the judgement.

But the largest award concerned the discriminatory dismissal itself.

Considering the seriousness of the violation under Section 49(4), the judge found that substantial compensation was warranted.

“The statutory maximum is reserved for the most egregious cases, and this is one of them,” the judgement stated.

The court awarded KSh2.5 million, equivalent to 10 months of Dr Mburu’s gross salary. It separately granted KSh750,000 for violations of her constitutional rights.

The judge cited Article 27(4) and (5), alongside Article 41(1), protecting equality and fair labour practices.

The companies must pay the full KSh3,507,068.65 jointly and severally within 30 days.

Interest will accrue at court rates until payment in full, and the respondents must bear legal costs.

The judge declined the requested 20 per cent annual interest, finding insufficient evidence to justify that rate.

READ ALSO: Bingwa Flour Maker Ordered to Pay Former Manager KSh2.2 Million for Pregnancy Discrimination

The ruling underscores the need for employers to prove genuine redundancy and observe statutory safeguards.

It also demonstrates how dismissal soon after maternity leave can trigger scrutiny when supporting evidence is missing.

In Dr Mburu’s case, the court found the employers’ explanation insufficient. Their failure to substantiate the redundancy and rebut discrimination proved decisive.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.