ambuka v Registered Trustees of the Pentecostal Evangelistic Fellowship of Africa (PEFA) & 3 others (Petition E197 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1571 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed a pastor's challenge to his suspension, ruling he first had to use his church's internal disciplinary procedures.
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 petitioner is an employee of the respondents, the preliminary objection on jurisdiction raising the issue
- 2.Whether the petition is premature for failure to exhaust the internal disciplinary procedures under the PEFA constitution and bylaws
- 3.Whether the suspension and intended disciplinary proceedings infringed the petitioner's rights under Articles 27(4), 32(1), 33(1) and 48(1) of the Constitution
Key legal issues
#Employment relationship and jurisdiction
The parties are in a contract of employment; the preliminary objection on jurisdiction fails.
The court found that article 8 sub-article 11 of the PEFA constitution establishes the District Council to recruit, employ, post, transfer and pay salaries of pastors, and to discipline credentialed ministers. The respondents' own submissions acknowledged the disciplinary process was within the employer's prerogative. Being subjected to a show-cause letter and suspension manifested the employment relationship, so the ELRC had jurisdiction.
Exhaustion of internal remedies
The petition was premature because the petitioner did not exhaust the internal disciplinary procedures under the PEFA constitution and bylaws.
The suspension letter did not mention the petitioner's pending court suits but set out particulars of allegations pending a disciplinary process before the National Executive Council. The petitioner, who did not attack the church doctrines discouraging civil suits, could not bypass the internal procedures. He failed the test justifying judicial intervention in an employer's human resource prerogative.
Alleged constitutional violations
No violation of Articles 27(4), 32(1), 33(1) and 48(1) was established.
The court found the suspension letter relied on other alleged misconduct (incitement, financial policy violations) rather than the filing of suits, and the petitioner failed to justify the court's interference. The alleged discrimination was not established, so the declaration and consequential relief were refused.
Legal principles established
#- A pastor whose church constitution vests recruitment, posting, payment of salaries and disciplinary control in church organs is in a contract of employment with the church.
- A court will sparingly interfere with an employer's human resource functions unless constitutional or statutory provisions are contravened, the contract is breached, the process is manifestly unfair, or internal procedures have been exhausted or rendered impossible.
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed
- 2.No costs (each party to bear own costs)
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Alleged contravention of fundamental rights and freedoms under Articles 27(4), 32(1), 33(1), 48 and 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; respondents contended lack of jurisdiction under section 12(1) and (2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Declaration that the suspension and disciplinary proceedings infringed Articles 27(4), 32(1), 33(1) and 48(1)
No constitutional violation established and petitioner failed to exhaust internal church procedures
Order of status quo ante reversing the suspension
Petition dismissed for failure to exhaust internal remedies
Order of prohibition against suspension and disciplinary proceedings
Petitioner failed the test justifying judicial interference with the employer's prerogative
Damages
No violation established; petition dismissed
Costs
The petition is dismissed with no costs
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 conclusion the petition is hereby dismissed with no costs.
The Court has considered that parties are in continuing employment and work place relationship and the petition will be dismissed with no costs.
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.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the petitioner was filed without care to exhaust the internal church procedures.
Issues in the judgment
#The amended petition (dated 09.11.2023) pleads cause numbers 'MCCC E1282 of 2024' and 'HCCA E782/2024', which post-date the petition date - apparent internal date inconsistency.
Typographical errors in the judgment, e.g. 'the petitioner was filed without care' (petitioner should be petition), and 'Sub-article 11.4.18 states that the exercises the power to discipline' (missing word).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "ambuka v Registered Trustees of the Pentecostal Evangelistic Fellowship of Africa (PEFA) & 3 others (Petition E197 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1571 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition alleging contravention of Articles 27(4), 32(1), 33(1), 48 and 50(1) of the Constitution (Amended Petition dated 09.11.2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1571/eng@2025-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.