Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No. 97 of 2015· [2018] KEELRC 1491 (KLR)

Simon N. Mwaniki & 25 others v Permanent Secretary Ministry of Defence & 3 others [2018] KEELRC 1491 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
18 June 2018
4,371 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled 26 Ministry of Defence employees were denied fair hearings during disciplinary action and awarded each Kshs. 500,000 in damages plus withheld pay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Twenty-six civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence petitioned the Employment and Labour Relations Court alleging that the disciplinary action taken against them after their NITA trade-test certificates were flagged as fake was unfair, unlawful and in violation of their constitutional rights. They were issued notices to show cause, interdicted on half pay, and subsequently demoted, reprimanded, subjected to salary deductions, or dismissed. They alleged violations of Articles 27, 28, 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution. The Respondents maintained that the Petitioners were accorded fair hearing and fair administrative action, that interdiction on half pay is standard in public service discipline, and that the Petitioners failed to exhaust their right of appeal to the Public Service Commission. The Court applied the Anarita Karimi Njeru particularity principle, rejected the discrimination claim for lack of comparative evidence, and found that while interdiction during investigation was proper, the disciplinary process was flawed because an oral hearing was necessary in the circumstances and was not accorded. The Court declared that the Petitioners' rights under Articles 41, 47 and 50 were infringed, ordered payment of all dues withheld during interdiction (except for the five dismissed Petitioners), awarded each Petitioner Kshs. 500,000 in damages, and awarded costs to the Petitioners. Prayers for promotion, reversal of the Kshs. 2,000 monthly deductions and backdating of pension were refused for want of evidence and because they should have been litigated in a normal employment cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Petitioners were discriminated against contrary to Article 27

Holding

Discrimination claim fails; Petitioners did not show they were treated differently from a comparable group

Reasoning

The Court adopted the definition of discrimination from Blacks Law 9th Edition, noting that discrimination envisages treating one group differently or preferentially against another under similar circumstances. The Petitioners did not point to what they were subjected to as opposed to a different group under similar circumstances, so the claim was not founded.

p. 5
02

Whether the disciplinary process violated Articles 41, 47 and 50 (fair hearing and fair administrative action)

Holding

Yes - the Petitioners were subjected to a flawed disciplinary process; an oral hearing was necessary and not accorded

Reasoning

The Court examined the circumstances of the disciplinary process and held that an oral hearing would have made a difference, allowing the Petitioners to explain when and where they sat trade tests and why they believed their certificates were authentic. Although the PSC discipline manual required notice and opportunity to respond, those procedures did not meet constitutional standards on fair administrative action. The right to a fair hearing was mandatory.

p. 6
03

Entitlement to withheld salaries during interdiction

Holding

Interdiction was proper as an interim measure, but upon lifting of the interdiction all withheld salaries and allowances were to be restored, except for dismissed Petitioners

Reasoning

The Court found interdiction during investigation permissible under the Public Service Commission Manual, which provides that a public officer on interdiction is entitled to half basic salary and that upon lifting of interdiction any withheld salary, allowances and benefits are restored from the date withheld. The dismissed Petitioners were excluded from this entitlement.

p. 6
04

Whether failure to appeal to the Public Service Commission bars the claim

Holding

Non-exhaustion of the appeal did not cure the constitutional violation; the right to a fair hearing was still not accorded

Reasoning

Although the Petitioners were given an opportunity to appeal to the Public Service Commission within six weeks and did not prove that they appealed, the Court nonetheless found that their right to a fair hearing had not been accorded, and granted declarations and damages notwithstanding.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A person alleging contravention of constitutional rights must set out the right infringed and the manner of infringement
  • The necessity of an oral hearing in disciplinary proceedings depends on the subject, nature of the dispute and circumstances of the case
  • The Constitution binds all persons and state organs even where the Employment Act does not apply to the armed forces

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the Petitioners' rights under Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution were infringed upon
  2. 2.Petitioners to be paid all dues withheld during the interdiction period except Petitioners No. 10th, 20th, 22nd, 24th and 25th who were dismissed
  3. 3.Each Petitioner to be paid Kshs. 500,000 as damages for breach of their constitutional rights
  4. 4.Costs of the Petition to be borne by the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Articles 2, 27, 28, 41, 47, 50, 259(4)(b)
  • Employment Act 2007Section 3(2), Section 10(5), Section 17(g), Section 41

Cases cited (8)

  • Timon Otieno Mboga vs Kenya Forest Service
    Cause No. 2 of 2014 [2015] eKLR
  • Peterson Ndung'u & 5 others Vs Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited
    Cause Number 1149 of 2011 [2014] eKLR
  • Anarita Karimi Njeru Vs Republic
    (1976-80) 1 KLR 1272
  • Owaga Vs Trans Ocean (U) Ltd
    (1990) KLR
  • Kenya Posts Authority vs Fadhil Juma Kisuswa
    (2017) eKLR
  • Local Government Board vs Arlidge
    (1915) A.C 120, 132-133
  • Selvarajan v Race Relations Board
    (1975) I WLR 1682, 1694
  • Republic vs Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex-parte Jones
    (1988) I WLR 477
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Cause No. 97 of 2015 (petition for violation of fundamental rights and freedoms)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Simon N. Mwaniki & 25 others v Permanent Secretary Ministry of Defence & 3 others [2018] KEELRC 1491 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 97 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1491/eng@2018-06-18

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