Imbisi v Kenyatta University (Cause E429 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1516 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenyatta University lawfully fired a lecturer over a relationship with a student, but still owed him Kshs. 404,400 in unpaid teaching and marking wages.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was substantively fair (valid and fair reason)
Yes - the claimant's admitted non-academic relationship with a student and possible influence over a CAT met the threshold of a valid and fair reason under sections 43 and 44(4)(g) of the Employment Act
The claimant admitted a cordial, non-academic relationship with student WW, meeting her at the carpark before a CAT and at Kamakis restaurant before results release, with text messages having nothing academic. As a lecturer he stood in a position of trust akin to a parent, and his conduct violated the standard of care owed to students. The court distinguished authorities where employers failed to prove allegations, since here the claimant admitted the facts. The reason therefore met the threshold of section 43 of the Employment Act.
Whether the termination was procedurally fair under section 41 of the Employment Act
Yes - there was substantial compliance with section 41 despite the claimant not personally cross-examining the complainant
The claimant received invitation letters disclosing the charge with sufficient detail, documents were supplied to his union before the hearing (though 6 days before rather than the CBA period), he attended with two union officials who were allowed to interrogate the complainant and make representations, and he did not object to the proceedings. He was dismissed on the same grounds he was suspended on, invited on and heard on. The court found substantial compliance with section 41.
Whether the claims for discrimination and defamation were established
No - the claims failed for want of evidence and submissions
The court found that no evidence was led on the issues of discrimination and defamation, and the claimant did not submit on them. The claims were therefore held to be without basis and were dismissed.
Whether the claimant is entitled to terminal dues for part-time teaching and marking
Yes - Kshs. 404,400 awarded with interest, as the respondent did not demonstrate verification or grounds to deny them
The respondent had stated the part-time claims were premature and undergoing verification but its witness did not address whether verification had since been done. The accumulated CBA arrears claim was denied, but the court found no basis to deny the part-time and marking dues, awarding them as prayed under paragraphs 9 (iv-xiii) totalling Kshs. 404,400 with interest from filing.
Legal principles established
#- A cordial, non-academic relationship between a lecturer and a female student violates the trust entrusted by parents to academic institutions and fails the standard of care of a careful and prudent parent
- Even without cross-examination of a complainant, there can be substantial compliance with section 41 of the Employment Act where the employee is informed of allegations with sufficient detail, establishes an informed defence, and is accompanied by union representatives who interrogate the complainant
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the claimant against the respondent for terminal dues under paragraphs 9 (iv-xiii) of the claim: unpaid part-time and marking wages amounting to Kshs. 404,400
- 2.Interest at court rates from date of filing suit
- 3.Costs of the suit
- 4.Stay of 30 days granted
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over unfair termination and employment disputes under the Employment Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Imbisi v Kenyatta University (Cause E429 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1516 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi Cause No. E429 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1516/eng@2025-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.