Waruhiu v Directline Assurance Company Ltd (Cause E1057 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1940 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court halted a flawed disciplinary hearing but ruled compulsory leave is lawful, telling the employer to redo the process properly.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Managerial prerogative versus judicial intervention in disciplinary processes
The court may intervene only in exceptional cases where the process breaches the law or internal policies, and then only to require the employer to rectify the breach
The court reviewed authorities establishing that disciplinary control is a management prerogative. Courts must not take over the employer's role but may compel compliance with law and internal rules. On the facts, the Respondent breached its own Manual twice: by denying a second seven-day window to respond to the show cause letter and by remitting the case to the Board instead of a properly constituted Disciplinary Committee. Intervention was therefore justified on the flawed process only.
Lawfulness of compulsory leave pending investigations
Compulsory leave pending investigations is lawful even if not anchored in statute, policy or contract, provided it is temporary
Relying on Mutwol v Moi University and Thomson Kerongo, the court held that there is no law prohibiting an employer from sending an employee on compulsory leave as an interim measure to enable investigations. The Claimant's compulsory leave was temporary and intended to facilitate unhindered investigations, so it fell within the employer's prerogative.
Breach of the Respondent's internal disciplinary procedure
The Respondent breached its HR Manual by denying the Claimant a second seven-day opportunity to respond and by seeking to hear her case before the Board instead of a Disciplinary Committee
Clause N of the Manual required that where an officer does not respond to a show cause letter, a final notice of seven days be issued before referral to the Disciplinary Committee. The Respondent instead issued a hearing invitation one day after the response deadline. The Manual also required a Disciplinary Committee comprising the Head of Department, Legal Counsel and Head of HR; the Board was not entitled to sit as such a committee. These breaches entitled the court to intervene.
Confiscation of work tools and right of access to information
The laptop and email are the Respondent's property and cannot be demanded by the employee, but the employee is entitled to information needed for her defence, to be accessed under the Access to Information Act
The court held the work tools belong to the employer which has absolute discretion over them. However, an employee facing disciplinary action is entitled to all material necessary for her defence as a constitutional right, and failure by the employer to provide it in time opens the process to challenge. The court declined to intervene directly because the Claimant had not exhausted the Access to Information Act mechanism.
Reinstatement while on compulsory leave
Reinstatement order refused because compulsory leave does not terminate employment
The Claimant remained an employee on full salary; compulsory leave only temporarily disrupts the employment relationship. Her prayer for reinstatement presupposed removal from the position, which had not occurred, so the relief was not well founded.
Legal principles established
#- An employer may send an employee on compulsory leave pending investigations even where the leave is not provided for in the Employment Act, the contract or internal policies, so long as it is a temporary interim measure
- Courts should exercise restraint in interfering with disciplinary processes and may intervene only to require the employer to redress a breach, not to stop the process altogether
- Constructive dismissal arises only where an employee resigns in reaction to an intolerable work environment
- Prolonged or indefinite compulsory leave or suspension breaches the employee's rights to fair administrative action and fair labour practice
Court orders
#- 1.Order of injunction restraining the Respondent from processing the impugned disciplinary hearing on the basis of the flawed disciplinary process
- 2.Declaration that the Respondent is at liberty to institute fresh disciplinary proceedings in strict compliance with the law, its Human Resource Manual and the contract
- 3.Declined to declare the suit overtaken by events
- 4.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) jurisdiction of the ELRC (implied by the cause; the judgment does not expressly cite the enabling provision)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Waruhiu v Directline Assurance Company Ltd (Cause E1057 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1940 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause (Nairobi) – application dated 11th December 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1940/eng@2025-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.