Sossion v Teachers Service Commission (Civil Appeal 476 of 2019) [2026] KECA 406 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled Sossion's firing had valid reasons but TSC used the wrong procedure, granting only a declaration, no compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether there was justifiable reason for the termination of the appellant's employment
- 2.whether the process of termination was legal
Key legal issues
#Whether nomination to Parliament by a political party constitutes engagement in partisan political activity by a public officer
Yes. A nominated member is a member of the nominating party, loses political neutrality, and must resign from public office under article 77(1) of the Constitution and regulation 187 of CORT.
Nomination as a member of Parliament is by a political party, and section 34(8) of the Elections Act requires the nominee to be a party member at submission of the party list, presuming active participation in party activities. Election and nomination are both processes for appointment to political office. The appellant accordingly lost political neutrality and could not continue in gainful employment as a teacher without resigning as required by article 77(1) and regulation 187 of CORT.
Whether there were valid reasons for terminating the appellant's employment
Yes. The failure to resign upon nomination constituted a valid reason, communicated to the appellant in the notice to show cause.
The appellant did not resign as required by article 77(1) of the Constitution and regulation 187 of CORT. Under section 43 of the Employment Act the employer proved the reason genuinely believed to exist at the time of termination, and that reason was communicated in the notice dated December 14, 2017.
Whether the process of termination was lawful despite valid reasons
No. The respondent used a summary procedure instead of the mandatory disciplinary procedure in regulations 144 to 156 of CORT, rendering the termination procedurally unfair.
The CORT provides a detailed disciplinary procedure of complaint, investigation, interdiction and hearing. This procedure was not employed; the respondent instead used a summary procedure. Following CMC Aviation and Ratemo v Dufourg, the employee must be taken through the mandatory procedure provided by law whatever the reasons for termination. The procedural infractions rendered the termination unfair, though the substantive reasons were valid.
Legal principles established
#- Summary dismissal under section 44 of the Employment Act cannot be used to exclude compliance with an express statutory or contractual procedure for termination; a mandatory disciplinary procedure must be followed whatever the reasons for termination
- Procedural fairness requires an employee be given notice of the charges that may lead to termination and a reasonable opportunity to consider and give a response
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the process of termination of the appellant's employment was not in accordance with regulations 144 to 156 of CORT
- 2.All other grounds of the appeal and reliefs sought by the appellant fail
- 3.Each party shall bear their own costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- ELRC Petition No. 12 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the ELRC (Memorandum of Appeal dated September 27, 2019)
Relief refused
#Nullity of termination and permanent injunction as sought in the ELRC petition
The termination was procedurally unfair but not rendered null and void; the appellant never sought damages or compensation and no basis was laid for such relief
Damages or compensation for unfair termination
The appellant never sought any damages or compensation in his petition in the ELRC
Costs
Each party shall bear their own 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 provisions on summary dismissal under section 44 of the Employment Act cannot be used to exclude compliance with an express procedure for termination which is either provided under statute or by contract.
Consequently, not only does that person lose political neutrality once nominated, but their professionalism in the discharge of duties as a public oficer is also compromised since he or she is expected to prioritize their political parties' objectives and agenda.
Our conclusion therefore is that while the respondent demonstrated good and valid reasons for the appellant's termination of employment, gave notice of the said reasons to the appellant, granted him adequate opportunity to respond before the termination of his employment, and the termination was to this extent not unlawful; the procedural infractions. rendered the termination unfair.
This appeal accordingly only partially succeeds to the extent that we grant a declaration that the process of termination of the appellant's employment was not in accordance with regulations 144 to 156 of CORT. All other grounds of the appeal and reliefs sought by the appellant however fail. Each party shall bear their own costs of the appeal in the circumstances.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment describes the Court of Appeal as a 'first appellate court' in relation to the ELRC petition, while the memorandum of appeal was filed in this Court; the phrasing 'in this respect' also suggests an incomplete edit
Internal quotation of section 30 of the Teachers Service Commission Act is truncated ('" (1)' with no following text) before the numbered subsections
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sossion v Teachers Service Commission (Civil Appeal 476 of 2019) [2026] KECA 406 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal (Memorandum of Appeal dated September 27, 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/406/eng@2026-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.