Ezekiel Kiprop & 8 others v University Of Eldoret [2015] KEELRC 309 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that employee suspensions were defective because the employer ignored mandatory contract terms, including notifying the employees' union.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Contractual authority for suspension
The Respondent had contractual authority to suspend the Petitioners but subject to attendant conditions which were not disclosed to them
The court surveyed comparative common law authority (McKenzie v Smith; McClory v Post Office) establishing that suspension requires contractual authority, and noted statutory underpinning can also authorise suspension. The applicable CBAs contained such authority: clause 5.2 for KUSU members (suspension on half pay, max 21 days, union notification) and clause 31.2 for UASU members (interdiction on half salary, 21-day timelines). The Respondent therefore had a contractual basis, but failed to meet the attendant conditions.
Defectiveness of the suspensions
The suspensions were defective because entitlements and period were not disclosed and KUSU members' unions were not notified
Clause 5.2 of the KUSU CBA required the suspension letter to be copied to the Union's Secretary General/Branch Secretary, which was not done. The suspension letters also failed to disclose entitlements during suspension and the period of suspension. The court reasoned that union notification serves to protect employees against the dominant employer. However, because the Court had directed full salaries be paid and investigations continued, the Petitioners were not prejudiced.
Distinction between interdiction and suspension
Technically different terms, but the court doubted the parties used 'interdict' in its technical meaning
Counsel argued interdiction and suspension are distinct. The court accepted the terms do not technically mean the same, citing statutory instruments governing the civil service, but doubted that UASU and the Respondent used 'interdict' technically, and proceeded on the basis that the Respondent had a contractual basis to suspend subject to conditions.
Legal principles established
#- An employer needs contractual or statutory authority to suspend an employee; absent such authority, suspension may amount to breach of contract or dismissal
- Where a collective bargaining agreement requires notification of the union on suspension, such notification is mandatory and failure to give it renders the suspension defective
- The employer is a dominant force and the employee may lack resources and knowledge to protect his interests, hence the requirement to notify unions in disciplinary processes
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent is directed to notify the Petitioners of the outcome of the investigations and what further action it intends to take
- 2.In case the investigations were not concluded, they should be concluded within 10 days and the Petitioners be duly notified of the outcome
- 3.The Petition to be mentioned on 27 November 2015 for the Petitioners to inform the Court of the utility of the Petition remaining in the docket/further directions
- 4.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction over alleged violations of constitutional rights in employment (petition filed under certificate of urgency; specific article not cited in the excerpt)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ezekiel Kiprop & 8 others v University Of Eldoret [2015] KEELRC 309 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/309/eng@2015-11-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.