Francis Gathungu v Kenyatta University
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that ordinary employment disputes must go through employment channels, not constitutional petitions.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the dispute was a constitutional matter or an ordinary employment dispute
It was an ordinary industrial/employment dispute arising from the contract of employment and should have been pursued as a civil claim, not a constitutional petition.
The court held the contract of employment dated 27th February 1979 was the first port of call; its dispute-resolution scheme referred unresolved matters to the Industrial Court. The contract, general terms of service and the Employment Act were paramount, and no logical or lawful basis elevated non-payment of salary during suspension to a constitutional violation.
Whether the learned judge erred in dismissing the petition
No; the judge was justified in dismissing the petition and the Court of Appeal saw no reason to interfere with his decision.
Applying its first-appeal jurisdiction, the Court found the appellant had not presented a sufficient basis to show constitutional violations addressable by ordinary suit, and the trial court's conclusions were neither perverse nor unsustainable.
Legal principles established
#- Where a clear procedure for redress of a grievance is prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure must be strictly followed; ordinary employment disputes should not be constitutionalised.
- Courts must confine constitutional determination to disputes raising authentic and genuine constitutional questions, applying the principle of avoidance.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court at Nairobi
- H.C. Petition No. 633 of 2008
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal under Rule 29(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Wilson Munguti v Raphael Kasuki Mutiso & Others30 Sept 2020followed
- Benjamin Ngila Ndeti & another v Director of Public Prosecutions & others30 Jul 2020followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Francis Gathungu v Kenyatta University", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Appeal No. 279 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/876/eng@2018-01-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.