Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 132 of 2015· [2016] KEELRC 1538 (KLR)

Peter Kemeli Too v Nandi County Public Service Board [2016] KEELRC 1538 (KLR)

Employment & Labour Relations Court of Kenya
10 March 2016
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
1,707 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court upheld a county officer's dismissal because he could not account for money he received, showing internal reports recommending leniency won't save a misconduct case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, appointed Chief Officer of the Department of Transport and Infrastructure, County Government of Nandi by letter dated 7th April 2014 for a four-year term, was suspended on 8th September 2014 over allegations including receipt of unreceipted money from contractors and interference with payments. A task force appointed while he was on suspension recommended his transfer to another department, finding no fault, but the respondent instead summarily dismissed him by letter dated 31st March 2015. The claimant sought declarations that the dismissal was void ab initio and amounted to unfair termination, reinstatement, and in the alternative compensation with interest and costs. The respondent defended the dismissal as lawful, citing section 31(d) of the County Government Act, 2012 read with section 44(3) of the Employment Act, 2007. The court framed three issues: whether the termination was wrongful, unfair or unlawful; entitlement to relief; and costs. On the evidence, the claimant admitted receiving Kshs.150,000 from Jebess Contractors without receipting or accounting for it and failed to answer complaints concerning a demand of Kshs.120,000 from Tega and delayed payments. The court found the task force's no-fault finding partial, conciliatory and outside its mandate, and rejected it. The court held the termination fair, procedural and lawful under sections 44(3) and 45 of the Employment Act, dismissed the claim entirely, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, on 10th March 2016 at Kericho.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the summary dismissal of the claimant was wrongful, unfair or unlawful

Holding

The dismissal was fair, procedural and lawful; valid reasons existed for termination and the claimant was accorded a fair hearing before the committee.

Reasoning

The claimant admitted receiving Kshs.150,000 from Jebess Contractors which was neither receipted nor accounted for, and failed to satisfactorily answer complaints of a demand for Kshs.120,000 from Tega and delayed payments. The Task Force's recommendation of transfer was rejected as partial and inconsistent with the evidence before it. The defence witnesses supported the case, and the dismissal complied with sections 44(3) and 45 of the Employment Act, 2007 as read with section 31(d) of the County Government Act, 2012.

p. 4
02

Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought

Holding

The claimant is not entitled to any relief, having been lawfully terminated.

Reasoning

Since the court found the termination lawful and procedural, the declarations, reinstatement, compensation and interest claimed could not issue. The claimant's own admissions of receiving and failing to account for money, and the rejection of the Task Force's lenient recommendation, disposed of the entitlement to relief.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A task force's findings may be rejected where they are not supported by the evidence and adopt a conciliatory approach outside its mandate; termination founded on substantiated misconduct is fair and lawful under sections 44(3) and 45 of the Employment Act.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the claimant's claim
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the claim

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007section 44(3)
  • Employment Act, 2007section 45
  • County Government Act, 2012section 31(d)
  • Public Finance Management Act, No. 18 of 2012
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007; County Government Act, 2012 invoked)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Peter Kemeli Too v Nandi County Public Service Board [2016] KEELRC 1538 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 132 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1538/eng@2016-03-10

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.