Mugiira v National Biosafety Authority; Inspectorate of State Corporations (Interested Party) (Cause E524 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1149 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to halt a CEO's disciplinary process, ruling that flawed procedures should be corrected, not stopped, unless exceptional circumstances exist.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court should grant an injunction stopping the disciplinary proceedings against the Claimant
The injunction was refused; the disciplinary process may continue subject to strict procedural fairness safeguards and a neutrally constituted disciplinary committee
The court reaffirmed that it will sparingly interfere with an employer's human resource functions. Although it found it was not prudent for five of eight Board members to sit in the ad hoc committee, noting natural justice concerns, four Board members had since left, meaning the Claimant would face substantially new members. Intervention to stop a disciplinary process is reserved for exceptional cases; instead the court directed safeguards rather than halting the process.
Whether the issues raised by the Interested Party and the parent Ministry concerning the suspension process remained live
The court found the issues raised by the Interested Party were put to rest at the 5th July 2024 Special Board meeting at which the Interested Party was represented
The minutes of the 5th July 2024 Board meeting annexed to Mr. Sande's Further Affidavit showed that concerns raised by the Interested Party were deliberated upon in the presence of its representative, who advised strict compliance with the law. The court therefore took the view that those objections had been resolved before the suspension resolution proceeded.
Whether the composition of the ad hoc committee and Board offended natural justice
The court found it was not prudent for five of eight Board members to sit in the ad hoc committee, as those members might also sit in a disciplinary committee
Five of the eight Board members sat in the ad hoc committee and two others belonged to the audit committee that authored the underlying report. The court held that having accusers also judge would offend natural justice. However, because four members had left the Board, the bias concern was mitigated going forward, which supported allowing the process to continue with safeguards.
Legal principles established
#- The court will not ordinarily interfere with an employer's internal disciplinary process unless the process offends fairness or due process, breaches natural justice, applicable policy, or would result in manifest injustice
- Where an employee legitimately feels a disciplinary process is marred by irregularities, the court will intervene not to stop the process altogether but to put things right
- Members who sat in the audit committee or ad hoc committee should not sit in the disciplinary committee, per natural justice
- Under Section 46(h) of the Employment Act, an employee's initiation of a complaint or legal proceedings against the employer is not a fair reason for dismissal or imposition of a penalty
Court orders
#- 1.The Court declines to grant the orders sought in the Application dated 12th July 2024
- 2.The Application is disallowed with no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; the court exercised its jurisdiction over employment and labour disputes to consider an interlocutory injunction within a pending suit
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mugiira v National Biosafety Authority; Inspectorate of State Corporations (Interested Party) (Cause E524 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1149 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E524 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1149/eng@2025-04-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.