David & another v PO (Principal K Girls Sec.) & 2 others (Cause E001 of 2022) [2022] KEELRC 1511 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court struck out a teacher's challenge to his TSC interdiction because he had to finish the internal disciplinary process first.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prematurity of suit before exhaustion of internal disciplinary mechanisms
The Claim was premature; the Claimant had just begun the disciplinary process entrenched in the TSC Code of Regulations and had a duty to submit to it before approaching the court.
The court examined Part XI of the TSC Code of Regulations for Teachers, 2015, which provides an elaborate procedure covering reporting of indiscipline, investigation, interdiction, hearing, communication of determination and review. The Claimant did not assert any procedural lapse; interdiction is not termination and he was asked to file his defence to the charges. Since no violation of procedure was demonstrated, the exhaustion principle required the Claimant to submit to the internal process first. The court applied the authorities on non-interference with internal disciplinary processes and struck out the Claim.
Whether the Magistrate's Court salary-based jurisdiction ousts the ELRC's jurisdiction
The legal notice donating power to the Magistrate's Court does not divest the ELRC of jurisdiction over such employment causes.
The court held that while the legal notice of 2018 confers jurisdiction on the Magistrate's Court over employment disputes where the gross monthly salary does not exceed Ksh. 80,000, this is not to be understood as removing the ELRC's jurisdiction. The ELRC's jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution and section 12 of the ELRC Act still extends to causes contemplated under the legal notice. This was an ancillary issue and did not dispose of the matter, which turned on prematurity.
Legal principles established
#- Courts should not interfere with internal disciplinary processes unless the process is marred by irregularities, is stage-managed, breaches the constitution, legislation, contract or HR policies, or is manifestly unfair.
- Where a procedure is provided by law to address a grievance, a party must exhaust that procedure before resorting to litigation, and may only overlook the internal process where there is evidence of procedural violation.
- The legal notice donating jurisdiction to the Magistrate's Court over employment disputes with a salary cap of Ksh. 80,000 does not divest the ELRC of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution and section 12 of the ELRC Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Preliminary Objection upheld on the ground of prematurity/non-exhaustion
- 2.Claim struck out with costs to the Respondents
- 3.Liberty left to the Claimant to invoke the court's jurisdiction after the disciplinary process if he concludes it was procedurally or substantively unfair
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162 of the Constitution as read with section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "David & another v PO (Principal K Girls Sec.) & 2 others (Cause E001 of 2022) [2022] KEELRC 1511 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No E001 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1511/eng@2022-06-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.