Maro v Teachers Service Commission & 2 others (Civil Appeal E039 of 2022) [2025] KECA 936 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a teacher acquitted in a criminal court can still be fired by the TSC through its own disciplinary process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether Regulation 139(3) and (4) of the TSC Code of Regulations for Teachers, 2015 is unconstitutional for offending Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution
- 2.Whether the appellant's constitutional rights to a fair hearing were violated by the parallel disciplinary proceedings conducted by the 1st respondent despite his acquittal in the criminal case
Key legal issues
#Whether a repealed provision can be challenged as unconstitutional
No. Regulation 139(4) had been deleted by Legal Notice No. 50/2015, Regulation 6, and a petition founded on it was premised on a non-existent provision.
The court traced the amendment history and found Regulation 139(4) had been deleted before the 2021 petition. A litigant cannot ask a court to pronounce on the constitutionality of a provision that no longer exists in law, so the claim against Regulation 139(4) collapsed entirely.
Whether Regulation 139(3) offends Articles 50 (fair hearing) and 159 (judicial authority) of the Constitution
It does not. The disciplinary process is an administrative, quasi-judicial process distinct from court proceedings, and the appellant was given an opportunity to be heard.
The interdiction letter invited the appellant to respond to the charges; he was given one month's notice of the hearing and appeared before the committee to make his presentation. The TSC, as a quasi-judicial body determining professional misconduct, was not required to conduct its process as a criminal trial, and no usurpation of judicial authority under Article 159 was particularised.
Whether an acquittal in a criminal case bars parallel or subsequent disciplinary action by an employer
No. Criminal and disciplinary proceedings are distinct processes with different procedures and standards of proof; acquittal does not confer immunity from discipline.
Relying on Teachers Service Commission vs. Joseph Wambugu Nderitu and Kibe vs. Attorney General, the court held that disciplinary proceedings are civil, quasi-judicial processes whose purpose is to maintain professional standards, not to punish criminally. The double jeopardy doctrine does not apply, and an employer may discipline an employee notwithstanding a criminal acquittal.
Legal principles established
#- A petitioner seeking constitutional redress must plead with specificity the rights alleged to be violated and the manner of the infringement
- A court cannot declare a repealed provision unconstitutional; a challenge premised on a non-existent provision fails
- An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not bar or render unfair an employer's disciplinary process; criminal and disciplinary proceedings are distinct processes with different standards of proof
- An employer's disciplinary process is a quasi-judicial administrative process distinct from court proceedings and is not bound by the outcome of the criminal justice process
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.The Judgment of the High Court at Malindi (Githinji, J.) dated 23rd June 2021 is upheld
- 3.The appellant shall bear the respondents' costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Malindi
- Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the High Court decision (Rule 31(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 invoked for re-examination of evidence)
Relief refused
#Declaration that Regulation 139(3) & (4) of the TSC Code, 2015 is unconstitutional
The appellant did not demonstrate how the Regulation offends Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution; Regulation 139(4) had been repealed and could not be challenged
Costs
The appellant shall bear the respondent's costs of the appeal.
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.
The petition having been filed in the year 2021 challenging the constitutionality of Regulation 139(4) was premised on a non-existent provision.
A petitioner must plead with specificity the rights that have been violated.
Ultimately, we find that this appeal is unmeritorious and is hereby dismissed. We hereby uphold the Judgment of the High Court at Malindi (Githinji, J.) dated 23rd June 2021. The appellant shall bear the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically render an employee immune to disciplinary action by an employer for the reason that a criminal trial and an internal disciplinary proceeding initiated by an employer against an employee are two distinct processes with difierent procedures and standard of proof requirements
Issues in the judgment
#The date of the High Court judgment is internally inconsistent: paragraph 1 and the final orders say 23rd June 2021, while paragraph 11 refers to a 'Judgment dated 23rd June 2022'
Counsel for the appellant orally argued the wrong appeal, submitting extensively on Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act before correcting himself mid-hearing
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maro v Teachers Service Commission & 2 others (Civil Appeal E039 of 2022) [2025] KECA 936 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal (High Court Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2021 appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/936/eng@2025-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.