Munga v Kenya Maritime Authority & another (Cause E110 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1013 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court partially halted disciplinary charges against a former maritime authority boss because the employer had no evidence for some accusations.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Board meeting of 20th September 2024 held outside the 1st Respondent's offices was unlawful
Non-compliance with section 8[c] of the State Corporations Act does not invalidate the meeting's resolutions absent demonstration of ill faith or malice; an interpretation requiring invalidity would lead to absurdity.
The court found section 8[c] imposes a statutory requirement on the place of meeting but is silent on consequences of breach. Reading invalidity into it would produce absurd results, such as invalidating meetings held by video conference. Invalidity requires proof of ill faith, malice or pursuit of an illegal act; otherwise the remedy lies in surcharging board members who breach prudent use of public resources.
Whether approval from the Principal Secretary could suffice for the Board meeting
The approval sought from the Principal Secretary was valid; ministerial circulars bind those to whom they apply, and Article 155(2) places day-to-day administration of a State Department with the Principal Secretary.
The court held ministerial circulars have binding effect and that seeking approval from the Principal Secretary was not off the mark. Rescheduling an approved meeting for valid reasons in the presence of Board members does not require fresh approval, as such insistence lacks legal foundation and conflicts with prudent use of public resources and time.
Whether the disciplinary accusations against the Claimant lacked substance such that the process should be stopped
Two counts (failure to appraise staff and disclosure of confidential information) lacked substance and must be stopped; the over-expenditure count may continue conditionally upon supply of better particulars and documents; remaining counts proceed unconditionally.
RW3 distanced himself from the Board paper underpinning the appraisal charge, and no evidence supported the leadership accusation. Treating the Claimant's use of the Board paper in court as breach of confidentiality was nonsensical and oppressive. On over-expenditure, the Claimant admitted part occurred during his tenure, so the disciplinary prerogative stands but conditioned on disclosure of documents; the Claimant was not furnished with requested documents.
Legal principles established
#- Non-adherence to the statutory requirement on the place of a state corporation board meeting does not per se invalidate the deliberations and resolutions of the meeting; invalidity requires demonstration of ill faith, malice or a furtherance of a prior identified illegal act.
- Courts intervene sparingly in an employer's disciplinary process, only in clear cases of unfairness, breach of natural justice, or breach of agreed, legislated or prescribed standards.
- It is manifestly unfair and contrary to the implied duty of confidence and trust for an employer to accuse an employee of matters for which it has no supporting evidence.
- An accused person is entitled to relevant documents and materials in advance of a disciplinary hearing as part of the right to a fair hearing.
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Respondent is interdicted from continuing with the disciplinary proceedings against the Claimant on the two charges of lack of leadership in performance appraisal of staff for FY 2023/2024 and disclosure of confidential information.
- 2.Disciplinary proceedings on the charge of mismanagement of funds shall proceed only upon the 1st Respondent providing the Claimant with better particulars regarding over-expenditure during his time of service and all documents he sought, to be supplied within 10 days of the judgment; in default the Claimant shall be deemed exculpated of the charge.
- 3.Disciplinary proceedings against the Claimant on the other counts in the show cause letter dated 23rd October 2024 shall proceed unconditionally but with adherence to procedural fairness.
- 4.The Court's order of 23rd January 2025 is set aside; the Claimant's remuneration effective from April 2025 pending conclusion of the disciplinary process shall be per the 1st Respondent's policy on payment of remuneration to interdicted employees.
- 5.Each party bears its own costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Constitution and Employment Act (claim framed on Articles 10, 41, 47 and 232 of the Constitution and section 46 of the Employment Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Munga v Kenya Maritime Authority & another (Cause E110 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1013 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E110 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1013/eng@2025-03-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.