Erastus Chege Mwangi v Kenya Railways Corporation [2022] KEELRC 966 (KLR)

The termination letter alleged sharing of unauthorized information with the public, but the Manual did not define 'confidential information' or 'public'. The National Land Commission is a constitutional commission and a key stakeholder in the SGR project; communication between the two public bodies was inevitable. The Respondent led no evidence that the SGR project was delayed or that its business was detrimentally affected. The Claimant acted in good faith to protect public resources, consistent with Section 16 of the Access to Information Act.

A show cause letter was issued and answered; an investigation committee and the HRMAC heard the Claimant with a representative of his choice. The delay between interdiction and hearing was not shown to be prejudicial, and the Claimant had no evidence that requested documents were requested or denied. An appeal is not a judicial process and there is no obligation to accord a fresh hearing on appeal.

Under Section 49(4) of the Employment Act, the court must weigh the practicability of reinstatement, the employee's contribution to termination, and the strained relationship. The Claimant filed suit seven days after termination without exhausting the internal appeal, his communication antagonized the two institutions, and his profession limited him to the Survey department. Submissions did not canvass reinstatement as the principal remedy.

Although the Claimant sought 24 months, no legal basis for that figure was urged; the court applied Section 49(1)(c) which caps compensation at 12 months. Considering the length of service (about 7 years 8 months), clean disciplinary record, good faith of the disclosure, but also the Claimant's substantial contribution to his own termination and the three months' notice terminable contract, six months was fair, consistent with Court of Appeal practice.