Hussein v Garissa University (Cause E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1025 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court declined to stop a university lecturer's disciplinary process, ruling that courts rarely interrupt employers unless internal rules or the law are breached.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court should intervene in the ongoing disciplinary process
The court declined to intervene, finding no breach of law, internal rules or contract and no exceptional circumstances or grave injustice.
The court reaffirmed the principle that disciplinary processes are a function of the employer, to be interfered with only in exceptional circumstances where great injustice might result. The Claimant did not demonstrate contravention of the Manual, breach of constitutional rights, or irreparable harm; if the process outcome proves unfair, he may seek redress through the judicial process thereafter.
Whether the Respondent conflated clauses 6.23(1) and 6.23(2) of its Human Resource Manual by suspending the Claimant
No violation: the second alleged infraction could fall under clause 6.5(e) and, via clause 6.22(ix), constitute gross misconduct attracting suspension under clause 6.23(1).
Although the alleged offences initially appeared to be general misconduct not warranting suspension, the Respondent anchored the second offence under clause 6.5(e), which through clause 6.22(ix) constitutes gross misconduct. Since gross and general misconduct may be committed in the same transactions, the employer could fuse both procedures. The suspension was issued under clause 6.27 and would lapse on 9th April 2025.
Whether the disciplinary process commenced without a formal complaint
The assertion was erroneous; the show cause letter dated 23rd December 2024 served as the formal complaint.
Clause 6.23 requires a formal complaint to commence a disciplinary process. The Respondent's accusation that the Claimant made false statements against it and his colleagues constituted the complaint, and it was incorporated into the show cause letter. A formal complaint may originate from the employer; it need not come from a third party.
Whether the disciplinary process was victimization violating articles 41, 42 and 47 of the Constitution and section 46 of the Employment Act
No cogent evidence of victimization; the process was a response to the Claimant's unsatisfactory, unsubstantiated response to the show cause notice.
The Claimant alleged his colleagues were promoted without qualifications but failed, when asked, to provide names and particulars. The Respondent was therefore entitled to institute a disciplinary inquiry. The court found no prima facie violation of the constitutional provisions or the Employment Act.
Legal principles established
#- Courts should refrain from interfering with an ongoing employer disciplinary process unless it is conducted in breach of the law, an internal rule or policy, the contract, or is manifestly unjust; where intervention is warranted it should only require redress of anomalies, not stop the process.
- An employee may simultaneously commit acts of gross misconduct and general misconduct, permitting an employer to pursue disciplinary cases under both clauses 6.23(1) and 6.23(2) of its Human Resource Manual at the same time.
- A formal complaint triggering a disciplinary process may originate from the employer itself and need not come from a third party; a show cause letter may serve as the formal complaint.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 14th January 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the case
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes and interim relief; articles 41, 42 and 47 of the Constitution and the Employment Act invoked
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hussein v Garissa University (Cause E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1025 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1025/eng@2025-04-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.