Kamunyu v Safaricom PLC (Judicial Review E066 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 28 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court refused Safaricom's attempt to stop a former executive's judicial review challenge, confirming courts can review unfair disciplinary processes.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Respondent's application to strike out the Applicant's judicial review application or set aside the leave granted for certiorari should be allowed
- 2.Whether the show-cause letter and invitation to disciplinary hearing constitute decisions capable of being quashed by certiorari
- 3.Whether the Applicant was required to exhaust internal appeal mechanisms under the Disciplinary Policy before invoking judicial review
- 4.Whether the stay orders issued on 2nd December 2024 should be vacated
Key legal issues
#Exhaustion of internal disciplinary and appeal mechanisms before judicial review
The court did not accept that failure to exhaust internal mechanisms warranted striking out the judicial review application at this stage
The Respondent contended the Applicant bypassed internal appeal mechanisms under the Disciplinary Policy and that judicial review is a remedy of last resort requiring exceptional circumstances. The court observed that the Applicant approached the court specifically on the illegality and unfairness of the disciplinary process, and that leave had already been granted on the face of the record; vacating the interim orders would nullify the judicial review process.
Whether to vacate the stay orders preserving the disciplinary status quo
Stay orders were retained to preserve the integrity of the judicial review proceedings
The court reasoned that the stay was issued to preserve the integrity of the judicial review process without delving into the merits of the disciplinary process. Setting aside the stay after granting leave would be inconsistent and would destroy the substratum of the entire application, so the Respondent's application failed.
Nature of judicial review
Judicial review addresses the fairness and legality of the process, not the merits of the decision
Both parties framed their arguments around the legality and fairness of the disciplinary process rather than its merits. The court confirmed this understanding and justified its prior grant of leave and stay on the face of the record showing a process warranting review.
Legal principles established
#- Vacating interim stay orders granted to preserve judicial review proceedings would destroy the substratum of the application
- Judicial review applications deal with processes and not the merits of the decision
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's application dated 4th December 2024 is disallowed
- 2.Costs in the judicial review application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011, Section 12; Fair Administrative Actions Act, Sections 2 and 9
Relief refused
#Striking out of the Applicant's application dated 29th November 2024
The court found the application by the Respondent not merited
Setting aside the leave granted to the Applicant to apply for certiorari
The court held that vacating interim orders would destroy the substratum of the judicial review application
Costs
Costs in the judicial review application (i.e. costs of the application awarded to the Applicant).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I find the application by the applicant is not merited and I disallow it accordingly. Costs in the judicial review application.
To vacate the interim orders granted would render the entire judicial review process a nullity and would be tantamount to giving and taking away with the same hand by destroying the substratum of the entire application.
Indeed Judicial Review application deal with processes and not merit.
Issues in the judgment
#Role terminology inconsistent - the Applicant (Nicholas Kamunyu) is referred to in places as 'applicant' and in others as 'exparte applicant', while Safaricom PLC is the Respondent but filed the application under consideration; the judgment also at paragraph 47 says 'The main contention by the applicant is that the exparte applicant did not exhaust internal disciplinary and appeal processes', appearing to mislabel parties
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamunyu v Safaricom PLC (Judicial Review E066 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 28 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review application (application dated 4th December 2024; leave application dated 29th November 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/28/eng@2025-01-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.