Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided

Murenga v Principal Secretary, Treasury & another (Civil Appeal 170 of 2019) [2025] KECA 7 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
10 January 2025
HOHannah OkwenguHOH. A. OmondiJNJoel Ngugi
4,777 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed a civil servant's unfair dismissal claim because he couldn't prove his case, warning that unproven forgery claims fail.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant was employed by the East African Community in 1975 and absorbed into the Ministry of Finance upon the Community's collapse. He was interdicted in 1981 on half pay after being charged with a customs offence, and acquitted in December 1983. He alleged he was never reinstated, that his half salary was stopped, and that he was dismissed for desertion in 1985 without a hearing, without receiving the show-cause or dismissal letters, and contrary to Articles 28, 25(a), 35(2), 41(1), 47 and 50 of the Constitution. Both respondents denied the claims: the 1st respondent asserted the interdiction was lifted in October 1984, that the appellant took leave from November 1984 and absconded, and was lawfully dismissed in 1985 after a show-cause letter and Ministerial Advisory Committee proceedings, with his later appeals to the PSC dismissed; the 2nd respondent (KRA) denied it was the employer, since the dismissal predated its establishment. The ELRC dismissed the petition for failure to prove the case on a balance of probabilities. On a first appeal, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the de novo standard of review but declined to disturb the trial court's findings. It found the documentary trail produced by the 1st respondent internally consistent and credible, and rejected the appellant's unsupported allegation that the documents were forgeries, noting he never sought cross-examination of the deponent. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the learned Judge was correct in dismissing the appellant's petition for having failed to establish his case on a balance of probabilities
  2. 2.Whether the interdiction on the petitioner was ever lifted, and if so, was the petitioner notified of the same
  3. 3.Did the petitioner apply for leave, and if so, was the leave granted
  4. 4.Was the petitioner served with the notice to show cause letter
  5. 5.Was the petitioner heard before he was dismissed
  6. 6.Whether the respondents violated the rights of the petitioner as alleged in the petition
  7. 7.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought

Key legal issues

#
01

Standard of review on a first appeal

Holding

The Court reviews facts and law afresh, reaching its own conclusions, while according due weight to the trial judge's advantage of observing witness demeanor.

Reasoning

The Court invoked the classic first-appeal standard: a de novo review of fact and law, tempered by the trial judge's assessment of demeanor. It also reiterated the restraint principle that findings of fact are not disturbed unless based on no evidence, on a misapprehension of the evidence, or on demonstrably wrong principles.

p. 6
02

Burden of proof on the appellant's claim of unconstitutional dismissal

Holding

The appellant bore the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that he was dismissed without due process; the documentary trail produced by the 1st respondent displaced his narrative.

Reasoning

The Court examined the series of letters - lifting of interdiction, transfer, grant of leave, stoppage of salary, show-cause letter by registered mail, dismissal letter, and two dismissed appeals - finding them internally consistent and mutually referencing. The appellant's allegation that they were manufactured was implausible, unsupported, and untested by cross-examination.

p. 8
03

Credibility of the appellant's claim that the respondent's documents were forgeries

Holding

The bald, unparticularised claim of forgery was rejected for five reasons, including the letters' internal consistency and the appellant's failure to disclose or annex the relevant documents.

Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the letters referenced each other and appeared prima facie credible; the appellant had earlier received them via the Commission on Administrative Justice but did not disclose them in his petition; he admitted sending the appeal letters; he failed to annex them to his further affidavit; and he never sought cross-examination of the deponent.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • On a first appeal, the Court of Appeal reviews both facts and law de novo but will not interfere with the trial court's findings of fact unless they were based on no evidence, a misapprehension of the evidence, or wrong principles.
  • A party who alleges that documentary evidence produced by an opponent is forged must take steps to impugn it, such as seeking cross-examination of the deponent; a bare allegation of forgery will not suffice.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the appeal
  2. 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

HO
majority
HO
majority
JN
majority
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court, Kisumu
Not stated (petition dated 27th March, 2014)
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (the judgment states 'This is a first appeal')

Relief refused

#

Allowance of the appeal and judgment as prayed in the petition (declarations of constitutional violation, compensation for lost salary from February 1981 to retirement, damages)

The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving his case on a balance of probabilities; the trial court was entitled to believe the 1st respondent's narrative that due process was followed.

p. 9

Costs

Appeal dismissed with costs (costs awarded against the appellant in favour of the respondents).

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal herein and we dismiss it with costs.
p. 9Final orders - dismissal of the appeal with costs
Orders accordingly.
p. 9Disposition clause
The standard of review is de novo: we are required to review issues of both facts and law afresh and come to our own independent conclusions.
p. 6First appeal standard of review
the trial court was eminently entitled to disbelieve the appellant's narrative; and, conversely, to believe the 1st respondent's narrative on a balance of probabilities.
p. 9Burden of proof and credibility findings

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Internal inconsistency in the date of the dismissal letter: elsewhere dated 29th May, 1985, but in the recitation of the trial court's letter analysis it is dated 25/05/1985.

minor

Internal inconsistency in the date of Jabane v Olenja: cited as (1968) KLR 661, which appears erroneous since Kenya Law Reports for that period would ordinarily be [1970] or similar; reported as printed.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Murenga v Principal Secretary, Treasury & another (Civil Appeal 170 of 2019) [2025] KECA 7 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/7/eng@2025-01-10

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.