Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No E6501 of 2020· [2024] KEELRC 1086 (KLR)

Mahia v Kenya Universities and Colleges Central Placement Service (Cause E6501 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1086 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
11 April 2024
NMNzioki wa Makau
4,395 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, formerly employed by the Respondent as a Placement Coordination/Career Development Officer (KUCCPS Grade 6), challenged his summary dismissal on 11th November 2020 arising from the procurement of two servers under Tender No. KUCCPS/ONT/04/2017-2018. He had served on the Evaluation Committee and the Inspection and Acceptance Committee. He sought a declaration that the dismissal was unfair, reinstatement, maximum statutory compensation of Kshs 2,028,000/-, general damages, notice pay, pending leave days, a certificate of service and costs. He contended the servers met tender specifications (relying on an ICT Authority report), that he was denied the investigative report and whistleblower complaint, that the Board rather than the HRAC conducted the hearing, and that only two of seven committee members were dismissed, amounting to discrimination and violations of Articles 27, 28, 41 and 47 of the Constitution. The Respondent maintained that the supplied servers achieved only 2.4GHz against the specified 3.2GHz or better, that the Claimant induced acceptance of non-responsive goods despite internal audit objections, and that Board-led proceedings were necessary because top management was implicated. The court found the disciplinary process satisfied section 41 of the Employment Act and natural justice, that the reasons for dismissal were valid given the shortfall in processor specifications and the need to re-tender, and that no constitutional violation was proved. The claim was dismissed in its entirety with no order as to costs, the court noting the Claimant did not exhaust the internal appeal available to him.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the reasons for summary dismissal

Holding

The reasons for dismissal were valid: the supplied servers fell short of the tendered 3.2GHz specification and the Claimant's actions influenced acceptance of non-responsive goods

Reasoning

The court found the awarded firm quoted a higher price and was non-responsive on processor speed, and that processors acquired could not achieve the expected speed, resulting in re-tendering. This corroborated the ad hoc committee's findings and the show cause notices, grounding the dismissal in valid and fair reasons under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.

p. 7
02

Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process

Holding

The process conducted by the Board complied with the law and natural justice despite the Claimant's objections regarding the HRAC, the investigation report and the appeal route

Reasoning

The court held the Claimant was charged, allowed to respond, and heard. Deviations from the HR Manual were justified because top management, including the CEO, was implicated, making Board-led proceedings necessary to safeguard natural justice. The Claimant's failure to pursue the internal appeal also weighed against him.

p. 7
03

Alleged violation of constitutional rights (Articles 25(a), 27(1), 28, 41(1), 47(1))

Holding

No constitutional violation was established; the claim on the rights failed with the main claim

Reasoning

The court found the disciplinary process lawful and fair, and the dismissal justified. Having found no unfairness, the related constitutional claims of discrimination, inhuman treatment and violation of fair administrative action could not stand.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • A disciplinary process that affords an employee charges, an opportunity to respond and a hearing satisfies section 41 of the Employment Act and natural justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim was dismissed in its entirety
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsections 41, 43(1), 45(2), 49, 49(1)(b), 50
  • Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act (PPAD Act)sections 3, 60
  • Public Ethics Act
  • Public Finance Management Act
  • State Corporations Actsection 15(1)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 35(1), 47, 227, 25(a), 27(1), 28, 41(1), 47(1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Iyego Farmers Cooperative Sacco v Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers
    [2015] eKLR
  • Jane Wanja Muthaura v Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission
    [2021] eKLR
  • Elizabeth Washeke & 62 others v Airtel Networks (K) Ltd & another
    [2013] eKLR
  • Patrick Abuya v Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya (ICPAK) & another
    [2015] eKLR
  • Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Arid Contractors & General Supplies (Interested Party) Ex parte Meru University of Science & Technology
    Nairobi High Court JR Misc. Application No. 407 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (sections 41, 43, 45, 49 and 50) and Article 47 of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mahia v Kenya Universities and Colleges Central Placement Service (Cause E6501 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1086 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No E6501 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1086/eng@2024-04-11

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