Mbuba v Aga Khan University (Cause 895 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 1964 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a worker's constitutional rights claim against her employer, ruling an ordinary employment dispute that had been settled does not become a constitutional case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the dispute amounted to a constitutional question
No - it was an ordinary employment dispute not meeting the constitutional threshold
The court held that not every workplace grievance meets the constitutional threshold. The claimant's complaints revolved around alleged breaches of her employment contract, which had been amicably resolved, and she had served her full term. Applying the principle of constitutional avoidance, the court found the emotions and voluminous documentation insufficient to elevate the dispute to a constitutional question justifying compensation under Article 23.
Whether the claimant's contract contained a probationary clause
Yes - the appointment letter signed by the claimant made reference to six months' probation
The claimant's plea that her contract of 2nd June 2016 had no probation clause was contradicted by the letter itself at page 86 of her bundle, which referenced six months' probation and which she admitted signing. She also testified she did not object to evaluation as it was required before confirmation. An earlier ruling by Lady Justice Wasilwa had already permitted evaluation subject to due process.
Pleading standards
The claimant's statement of claim was prolix and convoluted, contrary to the basic rules of pleadings
The court criticised the pleading for being excessively long, including evidence and legal arguments, and not logically ordered, which forced it to painstakingly sift through pleadings, witness statements and submissions to identify the real cause of action. This is an observation rather than the basis of the decision.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking constitutional redress must set out with reasonable precision the complaint, the constitutional provisions infringed and the manner of infringement (Anarita Karimi Njeri rule)
- Where a remedy is available under other legislation, a court will usually decline to determine an alleged breach of the Declaration of Rights (constitutional avoidance)
- Where parties have compromised contractual complaints and the employee served the full contract, a claim for violation of constitutional rights based on the same facts cannot be sustained
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is found without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 23 of the Constitution (claim for compensation for contravention of Articles 28, 29, 30, 41 and 47) within the Employment and Labour Relations Court's employment jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbuba v Aga Khan University (Cause 895 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 1964 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Statement of claim dated 12th May, 2017 (memorandum of claim). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1964/eng@2025-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.