Guyo v Commandant Kenya Prisons Staff Training College & 3 others (Petition E074 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 1371 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that dismissing a trainee over a criminal charge without a hearing was unlawful, reinstating him.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petitioner was an employee within the meaning of the Employment Act
The petitioner, a trainee at the Kenya Prisons Staff Training College, qualified as an employee as a learner.
Section 2 of the Employment Act defines an employee as a person employed for wages or salary and includes an apprentice and indentured learner. Although the petitioner held an admission letter from Kenyatta University, his training took place at the Prisons Staff Training College in Ruiru. The court held that as a learner he fell within the statutory definition of employee.
Whether the termination of the petitioner's training was unfair and unconstitutional
Yes; the 1st and 2nd Respondents failed to give a valid reason and failed to follow sections 41, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act, violating Articles 28, 29, 47 and 48.
The petitioner was terminated on 5th July 2018 after being charged with possession of narcotics, and was only acquitted on 30th May 2019. The court held that arraignment alone does not establish gross misconduct, and that even with an arrested employee the employer must still conduct due process under the Employment Act. The respondents gave no valid reason and no fair hearing, and the appeal decision upholding termination was similarly flawed.
Burden of proof in unfair termination
Under section 47(5) of the Employment Act the burden of justifying the grounds for termination rests on the employer; the respondents failed to discharge it.
Section 47(5) places the burden of proving that unfair termination occurred on the employee, but the burden of justifying the grounds for termination rests on the employer. The respondents, who did not even file written submissions, failed to justify the grounds and procedure of the termination, which could not stand under sections 41 and 45.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation
No; the prayer for compensation was disallowed for lack of specificity.
Although the petitioner sought consequential orders directing payment of such compensation as the court would determine fit, the court found the prayer for compensation not specific and disallowed it, granting all other declarations and orders sought.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must observe the procedural guarantees of sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act before terminating an employee, even where the employee faces criminal charges; criminal arraignment does not of itself establish gross misconduct.
- For a termination to pass the fairness test, there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
- The right to fair administrative action under Article 47 is wide in scope and encompasses duties to act expeditiously, fairly, lawfully, reasonably and, in specified cases, to give written reasons.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Petitioner's right to fair administrative action guaranteed under Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya has been contravened
- 2.A declaration that the Petitioner's right and fundamental freedom to access to justice guaranteed under Article 48 of the Constitution of Kenya has been contravened
- 3.A declaration that the Petitioner's right and fundamental freedom to dignity and security guaranteed under Articles 28 and 29 respectively of the Constitution of Kenya have been contravened
- 4.An order of certiorari quashing the decisions of the 2nd Respondent made on 5th July 2018 and subsequently March 16, 2020 terminating the Petitioner from training at the 1st Respondent's school without according him a fair hearing
- 5.An order of mandamus for reinstatement of the Petitioner as a trainee of the 1st Respondent
- 6.An order effecting the Petitioner to resume his previous status as a student of Kenyatta University, School of Security, Diplomacy & Peace Studies, to enable him complete the remaining units in his Diploma in Criminology and Correctional Sciences
- 7.An order of permanent injunction barring the Respondents jointly and/or severally from removing and/or interfering with the Petitioner's training as a prisons officer in any manner not provided for in accordance to the Constitution and/or law
- 8.Costs in the Petition to be borne jointly and/or severally by all the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 47, 48, 28 and 29 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the Employment Act, 2007 (supervisory jurisdiction over fair labour practices and fair administrative action)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Guyo v Commandant Kenya Prisons Staff Training College & 3 others (Petition E074 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 1371 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Petition dated May 3, 2021 (filed May 12, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1371/eng@2022-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.