Douglas Katana Randu v Judicial Service Commission & another [2021] KEELRC 2105 (KLR)

The court distinguished between ordinary employment-rights infringements (indiscipline), which Section 90 covers within three years, and fraudulent procurement of employment, which strikes at the validity of the contract itself. Using the illustration of an imposter applying under a false identity, the court reasoned an employer cannot be precluded from disciplining or removing an imposter merely because the fraud was discovered years later. The disciplinary process was therefore within time.

The court noted the Petition lacked particularity under the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold but proceeded on the fair hearing, fair administrative action and livelihood claims. On notice, the Petitioner had 21 days to respond in writing, and a further short notice for the oral hearing occasioned no prejudice as he appeared and defended himself without claiming incapacity. The genuine lapse was the failure to pay the alimentary allowance during suspension, a right under the JSA Third Schedule and the HR Manual.

With the constitutional claims having failed except the alimentary allowance entitlement, reinstatement, back salaries, general and exemplary damages were not available. The court directed payment of the allowance upon determination by the 1st Respondent of the amount, noting the sum is discretionary and the court could not fix it. As the Petition was largely unsuccessful, each party bore their own costs.