Stephen Maranga Obegi v Kenya Revenue Authority [2019] KEELRC 2550 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A former Kenya Revenue Authority employee lost his malicious prosecution and damages claims after the court found his dismissal lawful and his criminal case stemmed from public tip-offs, not his employer.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent maliciously prosecuted the Claimant
The complaint to the Police was not made at the behest of the Respondent; malicious prosecution fails for want of the setting in motion of the prosecution by the Respondent
The record of the Embu Magistrate's Court showed the Investigating Officer acted on a tip off from members of the public. There was no nexus shown between those members of the public and the Respondent, so no malice could be attributed to the Respondent in laying the information.
Whether the dismissal of the Claimant was lawful
The dismissal was lawful as it was effected pursuant to contractual authority, following the Respondent's Code of Conduct
The pre-2007 legal framework allowed termination for good cause, bad cause or no cause provided notice-period damages were paid; natural justice was not statutorily required. The Claimant was suspended, given the allegations, invited to respond in writing and to an oral hearing before a Committee. Any procedural deviation caused no injustice or prejudice.
Whether quashing of the criminal conviction invalidated the disciplinary dismissal
Quashing of the conviction did not assist the Claimant because disciplinary and criminal proceedings differ in objectives and standards of proof
The High Court quashed the Claimant's convictions on appeal, but the Court held that disciplinary proceedings then, as now, have different objectives, purposes and standards of proof from a criminal trial, so acquittal or quashing does not automatically render the disciplinary dismissal wrongful.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to lost prospective income to retirement
The claim was not proved and is unattainable in law
Relying on Bank of Uganda v Tinkamanyire, the Court held that an employee whose contract is terminated prematurely or illegally cannot be compensated for the remainder of the period to retirement; the head of claim was also not proved.
Legal principles established
#- Compensation for the unexpired period of employment up to retirement is not an available remedy for premature or illegal termination of employment
- Disciplinary proceedings have different objectives, purposes and standards of proof from a criminal trial; quashing of a criminal conviction does not without more invalidate disciplinary dismissal
- Evidentiary material must be produced during the hearing and filed with submissions will not be considered
Court orders
#- 1.The Cause is dismissed with no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over a cause of employment (specific statutory provision not stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stephen Maranga Obegi v Kenya Revenue Authority [2019] KEELRC 2550 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No 2109 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2550/eng@2019-01-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.