Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedELRC Appeal from CMELRC No. 125 of 2018 at Nakuru· [2023] KEELRC 1598 (KLR)

Teacher Service Commission v Nyangau (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E004 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1598 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
4 July 2023
5,088 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~20 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that reinstatement can only be ordered within three years of dismissal, and a criminal acquittal doesn't stop an employer's internal discipline.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court against the judgment of Hon. Benjamin B Limo (SRM) in Nakuru CMELRC No. 125 of 2018 delivered on 16th February 2022. The respondent, a deputy head teacher employed by the Teachers Service Commission from 2004, was interdicted in 2015 over allegations of defiling a pupil, charged in a criminal court and acquitted in May 2017, but the Commission nevertheless conducted a disciplinary hearing, found him culpable and dismissed him, a decision upheld on internal appeal. The trial court found the dismissal unfair for want of due process, ordered reinstatement and payment of back wages including 12 months' compensation. On appeal, the Commission argued that reinstatement ordered more than three years after dismissal contravened section 12(3)(vii) of the ELRC Act, that section 49(4) of the Employment Act was not considered, and that the acquittal did not bar disciplinary proceedings. Wasilwa J, re-evaluating the matter as a first appeal, held that the reinstatement order made about four years after dismissal exceeded the trial court's jurisdiction and was illegal ab initio. The court further found the respondent was summoned and heard in the disciplinary process, and that the criminal acquittal did not bar internal disciplinary proceedings. The trial court was found not to have considered extraneous matters or awarded unpleaded reliefs. The appeal succeeded; all trial court orders were set aside in their entirety, with costs to the appellants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction to order reinstatement beyond 3 years

Holding

The reinstatement order was made about 4 years after dismissal and was illegal ab initio

Reasoning

Section 12(3)(vii) of the ELRC Act permits reinstatement only within three years of dismissal. The respondent was dismissed on 31st July 2018 and judgment reinstating him was delivered on 16th February 2022, about four years later. The court held the order exceeded the trial court's jurisdiction and could not stand, restating the position in Sotik Highlands Tea Estate Ltd.

p. 9
02

Due process in the disciplinary proceedings

Holding

The respondent was given an opportunity to be heard; the trial court erred in finding otherwise

Reasoning

The court found that after interdiction the respondent was summoned and heard by the disciplinary committee on 22nd June 2017, and his appeal was heard and dismissed. The criminal acquittal did not bar internal disciplinary processes, which followed laid-down procedures. The trial court's finding that the respondent was not accorded due process was therefore erroneous.

p. 10
03

Whether extraneous matters influenced reinstatement or unpleaded reliefs were awarded

Holding

The trial court did not consider extraneous issues nor award remedies not sought

Reasoning

The court examined the pleadings and submissions and found that the trial court did not take into account extraneous matters in ordering reinstatement and did not award remedies beyond those claimed. The error lay solely in the reinstatement being outside the 3-year window.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • Reinstatement of an employee can only be ordered within three years of dismissal; an order made thereafter is illegal ab initio
  • Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not bar an employer from conducting internal disciplinary processes

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The orders granted by the trial court are set aside in their entirety
  2. 2.Costs to the appellants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Actsection 12(3)(vii)
  • Employment Actsection 49(4)(b),(c),(d) & (k)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 50
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 249
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 237(2)(e) and (f)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 252(c)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 47(1)
  • Teachers Service Commission Actsection 47(2); section 18(1)
  • Public Officers Ethics Actsection 5
  • Code of Regulations for Teachers 2005Regulation 66(3)
  • Teachers Service Disciplinary RulesRule 8.2.1

Cases cited (21)

  • Sotik Highlands Tea Estates Limited V Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union
    [2017] eKLR
  • Joshua Rodney Marimbah V Kenya Revenue Authority
    [2021] eKLR
  • Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & another v Stephen Mutinda Mule & 3 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • ADETOUN OLADEJI (NIG) LTD Vs. NIGERIA BREWERIES PLC
    S.C. 91/2002
  • Hezron Mukoko Silunya V Teachers Service Commission
    [2014] eKLR
  • Teachers Service Commission V Joseph Okoth Opiyo
    [2014] eKLR
  • Teachers Service Commission V Joseph Wambugu Nderitu
    [2016] eKLR
  • Bett Francis Barngetung and another V Teacher Service Commission and another
    Eldoret Civil Appeal No. 26 and 27 of 2012 [2015] eKLR
  • Hema Hospital V Wilson Makongo Marwa
    [2015] eKLR
  • D. K. Njagi Marete vs. Teachers Service Commission
    [2013] eKLR
  • Cofiee Board of Kenya V Thika Cofiee Mills Limited & 2 Others
    [2014] Eklr
  • Kiruga v Kiruga and another
    [1988] KLR 348
  • Kamau V Mungai and another
    [2006] I KLR 150
  • National Bank of Kenya V Samuel Nguru Mutonya
    [2019] eKLR
  • Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd V. Banking Insurance & Finance Union
    CA No. 188 of 2014
  • Alphonse N Mwachanga V Operation 680 Limited
    [2013] eKLR
  • Judicial Service Commission V Mbalu Mutava and another
    [2015] eKLR
  • Ridge v Baldwin
  • Mathew Kipchumba Koskei V Baringo Teachers Sacco
    [2013] eKLR
  • Hellen Khamali V Teachers Service Commission and another
    [2020] eKLR
On appeal from
Chief Magistrates Court at Nakuru (CMELRC)
CMELRC No. 125 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (Section 12(3) remedies discussed); appeal from magistrate's court decision

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Teacher Service Commission v Nyangau (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E004 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1598 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). ELRC Appeal from CMELRC No. 125 of 2018 at Nakuru. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1598/eng@2023-07-04

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