Edward Juma Masakha v National Environment Management Authority [2014] KEELRC 1210 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a NEMA director was unfairly sacked for trusting his deputy, and ordered his full reinstatement with back pay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether there was a valid reason for the summary dismissal under section 43 of the Employment Act, 2007
There was no valid reason; the claimant's trusting his deputy was not misconduct, and the deputy Kopejo designed and executed the irregular issuance of the high risk licence.
The claimant signed blank licences at his deputy's request for an urgent project, which was within his authority. All evidence showed Kopejo processed the high risk licence, orchestrated the belated fee payment, and covered up the transaction. The disciplinary committee itself found Kopejo bore higher responsibility. Absent evidence of intent to issue the licence irregularly or fraudulently, the dismissal was unfair.
Whether the procedural requirements of section 41 of the Employment Act were met
Yes; the claimant received notice and hearing before the disciplinary advisory committee.
The claimant was served a show cause notice, responded in writing, and was heard verbally before the committee. Due process was observed throughout the administrative disciplinary proceedings; the unfairness lay in the substantive decision, not the procedure.
Whether the board's decision on appeal was proportional
No; upholding the claimant's dismissal while retaining Kopejo, the key culprit, was not proportional, contrary to section 3 of the Industrial Court Act, 2012.
The board deviated from the committee's findings without new material, and by referring the matter for further investigation suggested it lacked sufficient material to decide the appeal. Imposing graver punishment on the supervisor than on the officer who executed the irregularity failed the proportionality principle.
Whether the claimant was entitled to the remedies prayed for
Yes; reinstatement with full pay from 7.12.2012, including release of withheld salary, was granted.
The termination was unfair; the claimant was a public officer with a clean record since 1989, the board acted without proportionality, and reinstatement was appropriate in the circumstances rather than the alternative monetary damages claimed.
Legal principles established
#- It would be unfair labour practice for an employer to terminate a manager or senior officer on account of an obvious breach of trust by a subordinate officer, because managers are entitled to trust those who work under them.
- The principle of proportionality requires an employer to impose punishment corresponding to the gravity of each employee's liability for the misconduct.
Court orders
#- 1.Reinstatement with full pay with effect from 7.12.2012 including release of the withheld salary throughout the period of interdiction and to continue in the respondent's employment unless lawfully terminated
- 2.The claimant to compute the amount of money due under order (1) and serve upon the respondent by 15.08.2014, for the parties to record the amount in court
- 3.The respondent to pay the amount by 1.10.2014, failing which interest at court rates payable from the date of judgment till full payment
- 4.The claimant to report to the respondent's Director General between the date of the judgment and 8.8.2014 for appropriate deployment
- 5.The respondent to pay costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Industrial Court; Industrial Court Act, 2012 (Section 3)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (5)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mwita v DHL World Wide Express Kenya Limited (DHL) (Cause E1005 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 3101 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 3101 (KLR)27 Nov 2023applied
- Butoyi v Sheer Logic Management Consultants Ltd (Cause 274 of 2019) [2022] KEELRC 1456 (KLR)[2022] KEELRC 1456 (KLR)13 Jun 2022
- Musau v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (Cause 71 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 1140 (KLR)[2022] KEELRC 1140 (KLR)13 May 2022
- Musau v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (Cause 71 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 1140 (KLR)[2022] KEELRC 1140 (KLR)13 May 2022followed
- James Kariuki Wanyamba v Kagumo Teachers College [2015] KEELRC 533 (KLR)[2015] KEELRC 533 (KLR)25 Sept 2015followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Edward Juma Masakha v National Environment Management Authority [2014] KEELRC 1210 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Cause No 214 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/1210/eng@2014-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.