Jonathan Chepkwony v George Makateto, the Acting Chief Executive Officer, Export Processing Zone Authority & 2 others [2019] KEELRC 933 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court halted an employer's disciplinary process, ruling that a hearing with a predetermined outcome denies an employee a fair hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case was established for conservatory orders halting the disciplinary process
Yes — the Applicant demonstrated a likelihood of a predetermined decision to remove him and that the disciplinary process was a façade
The show cause letter arose from an 'ad hoc' committee investigating staff discontent about a different officer, with unexplained charges against the Applicant. He had strong appraisals, repeatedly requested particulars and documents never supplied, and the minutes suggested he consider 'other options'. The court found his fears well founded and that he stood to lose his job unfairly without the orders.
The proper role of courts in internal disciplinary proceedings
Courts should generally not interfere except in exceptional circumstances such as breach of procedure or use of the process to remove an employee for no valid reason
Relying on Evans Rees v Richard Alfred Crane as cited in Nancy Makokha Baraza, Prof Gitile Naituli v Multimedia University, Rose Kiragu v TSC and Nixon Bugo, the court stated the general rule of non-interference in managerial prerogative, but held that exceptional circumstances existed here because the process appeared designed to remove the Applicant for reasons unrelated to the stated misconduct and without supplying requested information.
Legal principles established
#- Courts should not interfere in internal disciplinary processes except in exceptional circumstances, including where there is clear violation of the law or the disciplinary procedure, or where the process is being used to remove an employee for no valid reason
- Re-issuing a show cause letter after an employee complains of lack of particulars is an admission that the complaint of inadequate particulars was genuine
Court orders
#- 1.Pending hearing and determination of the petition, the Respondents are jointly and severally restrained from proceeding with the internal disciplinary process against the Applicant
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- 3.Parties directed to take directions on the hearing of the petition immediately in view of its urgency
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya, Articles 25(c), 47 and 50 (fair hearing and fair administrative action); Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jonathan Chepkwony v George Makateto, the Acting Chief Executive Officer, Export Processing Zone Authority & 2 others [2019] KEELRC 933 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Petition (ELRC), Nairobi — application dated 24th June 2019 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/933/eng@2019-08-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.