Oyagi v Nairobi City County (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E654 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 736 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ordered Kiambu County to pay Kshs. 5 million for keeping an employee on interdiction for nearly four years without finishing her disciplinary case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the interdiction of the claimant by letter dated 23rd April, 2018 was unlawful and unfair
The court found the interdiction itself fair and lawful, but the manner in which it was conducted and prolonged was unlawful, unfair and a violation of the claimant's rights
The court weighed the evidence that the claimant was given a notice to show cause, responded, and was given an opportunity to be heard before interdiction. However, the respondent failed to offer any plausible explanation for the inordinate delay of three years and eight months in concluding the disciplinary process, keeping the claimant on half salary in limbo. The court held that an employer cannot hide behind pending criminal charges to delay a disciplinary process indefinitely.
Whether the respondent's reliance on pending criminal charges justified the prolonged disciplinary process
The court held that a disciplinary process need not await the outcome of criminal proceedings, but the employer must still conduct it within a reasonable time and cannot keep an employee in limbo indefinitely
The court acknowledged the established position that disciplinary proceedings may run parallel with criminal proceedings arising from the same facts. However, it rejected the respondent's attempt to use the pending criminal case as justification for the delay, holding that this does not relieve an employer of the obligation to act within a reasonable time and keep the employee informed.
Whether the claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought
The court found the claimant entitled to compensatory damages for the unlawful and prolonged interdiction but declined the specific sums for withheld salary, lost allowances and career stagnation, and exemplary damages
The court found that the withheld salary and allowances had been fully paid under the consent order and that the claimant had not proved any shortfall with the required degree of certainty. The claim for career stagnation failed because the claimant's salary had increased and all accrued dues were paid. Exemplary damages were refused because the initial interdiction was fair and lawful.
Legal principles established
#- Interdiction is a temporary measure to keep an employee away from the workplace and must not act as a de facto termination of employment
- Even with interdiction at half remuneration, the employee remains an employee and is entitled to fair hearing and fair administrative action
- An interdiction must be based on fair reasons and implemented through fair procedure
- A disciplinary process need not await the outcome of criminal proceedings, but this does not license keeping an employee in limbo indefinitely
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the claimant against the respondent in the sum of Kshs. 5,000,000 being general damages for unlawful and prolonged interdiction
- 2.The sum awarded shall attract interest at court rates from the date of this judgment until payment in full
- 3.The respondent shall pay the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Oyagi v Nairobi City County (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E654 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 736 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELRC Cause No. 108 of 2021 (formerly Nbi Cause No. 1005 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/736/eng@2024-04-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.