Shibutse v Anti-doping Agency of Kenya (Petition E023 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 793 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court refused to stop the ADAK CEO's disciplinary hearing, confirming Kenyan courts rarely interfere with employers' internal 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 Court should grant a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from conducting the intended disciplinary hearing against the applicant
- 2.Whether the applicant established a prima facie case or other grounds justifying the Court's intervention in the ongoing disciplinary process
- 3.Whether want of exhaustion of the internal disciplinary procedure bars the application for interim orders
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court should intervene in the ongoing disciplinary process
The application was dismissed; the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case or show contravention of any provision justifying intervention in the continuing disciplinary process
The court adopted the principles in Geoffrey Mworia v Water Resource Management Authority that judicial interference with an employer's disciplinary control is warranted only sparingly - where the process contravenes the Constitution or legislation, breaches the contract, is manifestly unfair, or where internal procedures cannot address the breach. The court found the disciplinary process was continuing in accordance with the law, that no applicable provision was shown to have been contravened, and that the test for the interim reliefs was not met. Alleged bias and doctored materials were matters to raise with the respondent for a fair procedure, not grounds to halt the process.
Whether failure to exhaust internal disciplinary procedures barred the application
No - the existence of internal process would not bar the applicant from seeking interim orders, per rule 56 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024
The respondent argued want of exhaustion, but the court noted there was no preliminary objection or application on that point. Relying on rule 56 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, the court held that a person party to a dispute may file a suit and seek interlocutory relief pending exhaustion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and that want of exhaustion does not bar an application for interim orders. Such a suit may be stayed, not struck out. The existence of internal process therefore did not defeat the application for interim relief.
Legal principles established
#- The Court will sparingly interfere in an employer's disciplinary control and other human resource functions, only where constitutional or statutory provisions are contravened, the contract is breached, the process is manifestly unfair, or internal procedure cannot address the breach
- Under rule 56 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, want of exhaustion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms does not bar a suit for interim orders or alleging unconstitutionality or unlawfulness
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 17.02.2025 is dismissed with costs in the cause
- 2.Parties to take directions for further steps on the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(3)(i) and (ii) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and rule 45 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the respondents from conducting the intended disciplinary hearing
The applicant did not establish a prima facie case or show that the disciplinary process contravenes the Constitution, legislation or the parties' agreement; concerns about bias or doctored materials are to be raised with the respondent, not to stop the process
Costs
Dismissed with costs in the cause
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.
In view of the findings, the application is amenable to dismissal with costs in the cause and the parties to take further directions for further steps in the petition.
The court will very sparingly interfere in the employer's entitlement to perform any of the human resource functions such as recruitment, appointment, promotion, transfer, disciplinary control, redundancy, or any other human resource function.
want of exhaustion of such alternative dispute resolution mechanisms shall not operate as a bar to a suit for application for interim orders or alleging unconstitutionality or unlawfulness of the action, omission, decision or other matter in dispute pending such exhaustion
Issues in the judgment
#The parties' names and the case number are not stated in the judgment text; the petitioner is referenced only as 'the petitioner' and the matter only as 'the petition dated 17.02.2025'. The petitioner is identifiable only as the CEO of the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya.
The judgment cites clause numbers inconsistently for the human capital policy: the board resolved the petitioner engaged in misconduct under 'clauses 10.23.4.1' while the respondent elsewhere cites compliance with 'clauses 10.25.4 and 10.25.5'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shibutse v Anti-doping Agency of Kenya (Petition E023 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 793 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 17.02.2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/793/eng@2025-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.