Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedPetition dated 24th June 2019 (ELRC, Nairobi)· [2020] KEELRC 1548 (KLR)

Dr. Ednah Kemunto Gisore v Aga Khan University Hospital (Petition 105 of 2019) (Employment and Labour) [2020] KEELRC 1548 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 February 2020
7,978 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~32 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that a doctor's hospital clinical privileges survive resignation from her teaching job, and cancelling them was unconstitutional discrimination.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, a medical doctor, was employed by the respondent university teaching hospital as Full Time Faculty in the Department of Anaesthesia while separately holding clinical privileges granted in 2012 and renewed on 9th May 2018 for three years to 31st May 2021. She resigned from Full Time Faculty by letter dated 1st April 2019, effective 30th June 2019, and the resignation was accepted by letter of 2nd May 2019 without reference to clinical privileges. Only after the University of Nairobi sought confirmation that she could continue treating its patients in her private capacity did the respondent write the impugned letter of 17th June 2019 stating that her clinical privileges would automatically be relinquished on her last working day pursuant to Section 3.4 of the 2017 Medical Staff Bylaws. The petitioner petitioned for declarations of violation of Articles 27, 41, 47 and 50 and for quashing of that letter. The court upheld its jurisdiction under Article 162(2) and section 12 of the ELRC Act, finding the dispute arose from employment. It held that the faculty contract and the clinical privileges contract were separate and distinct, that Section 3.4's use of 'or' is disjunctive so resignation from faculty did not relinquish Active Medical Staff Membership, and that Section 2.3.2 grandfathered practitioners already privileged. The 17th June 2019 letter was therefore discriminatory under Article 27. Articles 41(2), 47(2) and 50 violations were not established. The petition was allowed in part: a declaration of discrimination was issued, the impugned letter was quashed to the extent it cancelled the clinical privileges, and costs were awarded to the petitioner.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELRC over a petition by a former employee concerning clinical privileges

Holding

The court has jurisdiction because the dispute arises from the employment relationship and the respondent itself contends the clinical rights were conferred by employment

Reasoning

Jurisdiction is founded on Article 162(2) and section 12 of the ELRC Act. The respondent's objection that the petitioner was no longer an employee contradicted its own position that clinical rights flowed from employment. The court held it proper to determine whether the clinical rights were employment rights extinguished by resignation.

p. 8
02

Whether clinical privileges were attached to employment as full-time faculty

Holding

They were separate and distinct; resignation from faculty did not affect clinical privileges

Reasoning

The appointment letter made no reference to clinical privileges; privileges were granted and renewed by separate instruments and subject to separate criteria not requiring faculty membership. Section 3.4 of the Bylaws refers disjunctively to resignation from Full Time Faculty or Active Medical Staff Membership, and Section 2.3.2 excepted those already privileged from the 3rd Edition Bylaws.

p. 15
03

Whether the letter of 17th June 2019 discriminated against the petitioner contrary to Article 27

Holding

Yes - it treated her differently from other already-privileged private practitioners excepted by Section 2.3.2

Reasoning

The respondent did not produce evidence that privileges granted to non-faculty private practitioners differed from those granted to the petitioner. Applying Section 2.3.2 as read with 3.4 to strip the petitioner's privileges, while grandfathering other already-privileged practitioners, amounted to discrimination under Article 27.

p. 14

Legal principles established

#
  • Clinical privileges granted by a separate instrument are distinct from employment as full-time faculty; resignation from faculty does not automatically surrender clinical privileges under Bylaws Sections 2.3.2 and 3.4
  • The word 'or' in Bylaws Section 3.4 is disjunctive, so resignation from one of Full Time Faculty or Active Medical Staff Membership does not relinquish the other

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the conduct of the Respondent was a discrimination against the petitioner
  2. 2.An order quashing the letter dated 17th June 2019 to the extent it purports to cancel the clinical privileges of the petitioner on 30th June 2019
  3. 3.Costs of the petition to be borne by the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 162(2)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 90
  • Aga Khan University Hospital Medical Staff Bylaws 3rd Edition, 2017Sections 2.1, 2.3.2, 3.4

Cases cited (11)

  • Turkana County Government and 20 Others v Attorney General and Others
    2016
  • Maurice Adongo Anyango v Kenyatta International Convention Centre
    (2018) eKLR
  • Peter Nderitu v Teachers Service Commission
    (2019) eKLR
  • Peter Ndegwa v Teachers Service Commission
  • G4S Security Services (K) Limited v Joseph Kamau & 468 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Eric V. J. Makokha and 4 Others v Lawrence Sagini and 2 Others
    (1994) eKLR
  • Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Attorney General and 2 Others
    (2012) eKLR
  • United States International University (USIU) v The Attorney General
  • Harrikinson v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
  • Gabriel Mutava
  • Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution and section 12 of the ELRC Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Dr. Ednah Kemunto Gisore v Aga Khan University Hospital (Petition 105 of 2019)  (Employment and Labour) [2020] KEELRC 1548 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Petition dated 24th June 2019 (ELRC, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1548/eng@2020-02-21

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