Ithai v Kenyatta National Hospital (Cause 225 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 387 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled Kenyatta National Hospital unfairly fired a senior employee through a disciplinary process that broke its own rules, ordering re-engagement or Kshs. 3 million compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was heard by the properly mandated Disciplinary Committee
No. As Chief, Corporate Affairs and Communication and Head of Department, he should have been heard by the BOMSDAC; the ad hoc Committee of 9 management officers had no mandate, so the proceedings were a nullity
The governing Terms and Conditions of Service 2010-2011 establish three Staff Disciplinary and Advisory Committees. The Committee that heard the Claimant matched none of their prescribed compositions: none of its 9 members was identified as a Board member or ministry representative. Jurisdiction flows from constitutive or regulatory instruments, and a body without it cannot act. The dismissal decision was therefore void ab initio.
Whether the disciplinary process met standards of impartiality and natural justice
No. The Committee comprised conflicted officers who prejudged the Claimant, gagged his trade union representative, and heard the case without the accusers testifying
The Chair headed Security and worked with HR on investigations; Nyachoti and Kihuga were involved in the subject matter. Members told the Claimant his fate was sealed. Section 41para 2 of the Employment Act requires an employer to hear representations of the accompanying person, which was refused. Mwenesi and Katiku, whose statements alleged bribery and sexual harassment, never appeared to be confronted, and the Court of Appeal authority on untested accuser statements was applied.
Whether the handling of the Claimant's appeal was fair
No. The appeal was delayed about a year, the Claimant was never invited to be heard by the full Board, and he learnt of the outcome by chance
Under the Terms and Conditions, appeals from BOMSDAC go to the full Board of Management. Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act and Section 45para 5 of the Employment Act require procedural fairness in appeals, including a personal hearing. Keeping the Claimant in darkness for a year violated his rights to fair administrative action under Article 47 and fair labour practices under Article 41.
Whether there were valid reasons justifying dismissal
No. The bribery and sexual harassment allegations were unproved; the accusers gave no evidence at the hearing or in court, and the Claimant's insistence on procurement compliance (Executive Order No. 6 and Treasury Circular No. 20/2015) suggested victimization
The dismissal letter rested on 'high probability' that money changed hands, a generalized conclusion unsupported by evidence. Mwenesi's electronic messages, alleging the Claimant demanded money and 'our lady', were one-way and untested. No prosecution followed the police report. The Claimant had embargoed a flawed tender, and top managers pressured him to sidestep procurement law, indicating he was victimized for his stand against corruption.
What remedies are merited
Declaration of unfair and unlawful termination; re-engagement at the same salary (reinstatement being statutorily barred after 3 years); withheld salary from suspension to the date the appeal was declined; alternatively 12 months' gross salary as compensation (Kshs. 3,048,480), at the Claimant's election
Reinstatement under Section 12para 3[vii] of the E&LRC Act is only available within 3 years of dismissal, which had elapsed, and the imprecise job title made it impracticable. Re-engagement under Section 49para 3[b] of the Employment Act is workable and accommodates restructuring. Salary arrears for unrendered service would be unjust enrichment, but withheld suspension salary was payable as promised. Compensation of 12 months reflects 13 years of unblemished service and no contributory fault.
Legal principles established
#- Administrators must obey their own regulations; a disciplinary committee constituted contrary to the applicable human resource instruments has no power over the employee and its decision is a nullity
- The right to a fair hearing extends to appeals against administrative decisions; an appellate body must personally hear the appellant, guided by the Fair Administrative Action Act
- Handling of an appeal against dismissal carries the same test of procedural fairness as the primary hearing under Section 45para 5 of the Employment Act
- Members of a disciplinary committee who are potential witnesses or are otherwise conflicted ought not to sit, and prejudgment or intemperate conduct compromises a fair hearing
- Employment remedies must be proportionate to the economic injuries suffered and not aimed at unjust enrichment
Court orders
#- 1.It is declared that termination of the Claimant's contract by the Respondent was unfair and unlawful
- 2.The Respondent shall re-engage the Claimant to work comparable to that in which he worked, immediately prior to termination, or other reasonably suitable work, at the same salary level
- 3.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant withheld salary from the date of suspension, to the date his Appeal on dismissal, was declined by the Respondent
- 4.The period from the date the Appeal was declined, to the date of re-engagement, shall be treated as a period of unpaid leave
- 5.There shall be no loss of continuity in the years of service
- 6.In the alternative to the remedy of re-engagement, the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant equivalent of 12 months' salary in compensation for unfair and unlawful termination, at Kshs. 3,048,480
- 7.The Claimant shall indicate in writing to the Respondent, within 30 days of delivery of this Judgment, which of his two alternative prayers he elects
- 8.The Respondent to comply in full with the Judgment of the Court within another 30 days of receiving the Claimant's communication, in default the Claimant to pursue appropriate enforcement
- 9.Costs to the Claimant
- 10.Interest allowed at court rate, from the date of Judgment till compliance in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Section 12 (Employment Act claims; unfair termination)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ithai v Kenyatta National Hospital (Cause 225 of 2019) [2024] KEELRC 387 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (Cause, Employment and Labour Relations Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/387/eng@2024-02-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.