John Karanja Ngugi v Kenyatta University & another [2016] KEELRC 634 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenyatta University lecturer Dr. John Karanja Ngugi lost his bid to overturn his dismissal after the Employment and Labour Relations Court found the University had valid reasons and followed fair procedure.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether there were valid reasons for the dismissal
The dismissal was for valid reasons - professional misconduct by association with plagiarism bureaus
The applicant was suspended and dismissed over involvement with Supreme Consulting Limited and Double Entry Consulting Limited, found to be plagiarism bureaus. Two witnesses testified that Kshs.45,000 was demanded to help finalise a project, and the applicant admitted being a director of Supreme Consulting. As a director he owed statutory care and diligence, could not permit illegalities in a company associated with him, and took no action against Muli nor reported Kasimolo for using his address. The conduct fell under the Terms of Service as scandalous conduct justifying removal.
Whether due process was accorded
Due process under Section 41 of the Employment Act was followed
The applicant was suspended with reasons elaborated in the letter, invited to the Senior Board of Discipline, submitted a written defence, appeared and defended himself before the Board, witnesses were heard, and he was given a right of appeal which he did not exercise. His complaint of only fifteen minutes' notice and denial of counsel was contradicted by his own plea at the hearing to withdraw his lawyer's letter.
Whether judicial review remedies could lie in a private-law employment dispute before the ELRC
The court declined to be constrained; the ELRC has jurisdiction over such matters and can grant remedies, but having found the dismissal fair, no remedy was due
The court accepted that judicial review concerns the decision-making process rather than merits, but held that the ELRC cannot demarcate its own jurisdiction or leave judicial review issues to another court. Relying on the Panday decision of the Privy Council, a court dealing with judicial review can grant consequential redress itself. However, since the court found the dismissal fair and justified, the applicant was entitled to no remedy and the application was dismissed with costs.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must prove the reason or reasons for termination; if it fails, the termination is deemed unfair
- A director must exercise care, skill and diligence in performing the functions of a director
- A court dealing with a judicial review application can itself award consequential redress or order a separate trial of issues rather than remitting matters to civil proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.The application is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court under Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2014, invoked in respect of a judicial review application (Law Reform Act, Section 8 remedies referenced)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Karanja Ngugi v Kenyatta University & another [2016] KEELRC 634 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Judicial Review No 6 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/634/eng@2016-09-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.