Issak v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (Cause 484 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2517 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that an employee who skips disciplinary hearings forfeits the chance to challenge their dismissal, though suspension pay remains due.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of reasons and fairness of procedure for the dismissal
The dismissal for gross misconduct was justified; the employer accommodated the claimant on three occasions but he refused to attend or respond, so the allegations went unchallenged.
The court found the claimant was suspended with 14 days to respond, extended by 10 days, with detailed particulars supplied on 19 February 2015. He was invited to disciplinary hearings on 2, 11 and 25 March 2015 but declined, citing illness without medical certificates as required by sections 30 and 34 of the Employment Act. The failure to attend breached sections 44(3) and (4) of the Act, justifying summary dismissal.
Claim of denial of fair administrative action and premeditated dismissal
Not established; the employer followed due process and the advertisement of the position did not render the dismissal unfair on these facts given the claimant's non-participation.
The court reasoned that the employee must remain available and responsive during suspension; the direction to attend a disciplinary hearing was a lawful instruction. By refusing to respond or attend, the claimant was in breach of his contract and the Employment Act, and the employer could not be faulted for acting on the unchallenged allegations.
Salary during suspension
Proceeding on suspension without pay perpetuates unfair labour practices; the salary for the suspension period is payable upon clearance.
Although the dismissal was lawful, the court held the suspension-without-pay clause (clause 10.2.5.3 of the HR Manual) was an unfair labour practice, and the salary for the period 6 February 2015 to 9 April 2015 should be paid upon the claimant attending and clearing. This was the sole head of relief allowed.
Legal principles established
#- An employee on suspension remains an employee subject to the employer's lawful directions and must attend a disciplinary hearing upon recall.
- An employee who squanders the opportunity to attend a disciplinary hearing cannot later fault the sanction imposed.
- An employee relying on illness to excuse non-attendance must submit a medical certificate under sections 30 and 34 of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Claim dismissed
- 2.Claimant to attend and clear for payment of his salary while on suspension from 6 February 2015 to 9 April 2015 if not already paid
- 3.Each party to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (not expressly quoted; matter a first-instance employment claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Onyango v Bridge International Academies (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1458 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2288 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2288 (KLR)31 Jul 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Issak v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (Cause 484 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2517 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No 484 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2517/eng@2024-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.