Loise v Murang’a University of Technology (Cause E032 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2192 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's ELRC confirmed employers can discipline public officers for off-duty misconduct, but dismissed almost all the employee's claims for unfair termination.
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 termination was grounded on a valid and fair reason.
- 2.Whether fair procedure was followed.
- 3.Whether the reliefs sought are merited.
Key legal issues
#Whether an employer may discipline and dismiss an employee for off-duty conduct as an official of a separate legal entity (the staff SACCO)
Yes. As a public officer the claimant was bound by Chapter Six of the Constitution and integrity legislation whether on or off duty; the HR Staff Code of Conduct formed part of his contract and extended the employer's disciplinary reach to his private financial dealings, and the unchallenged Inspection Report supplied a valid and fair reason for dismissal.
The court relied on Article 260 definitions of public officer, section 52 of the Leadership and Integrity Act applying Chapter Six to all public officers, and Article 75. It noted the claimant admitted being a public officer required to uphold integrity even while serving in the SACCO. The SACCO's separate legal personality did not insulate him: the conduct damaged his integrity as a public officer and the employment relationship with colleagues. The HR Policy Schedule 3 formed part of the contract, bringing off-duty conduct under the employer's control.
Whether fair procedure under section 41 of the Employment Act was followed
Yes. The claimant was served a show cause letter, responded in writing, was informed of the charges, attended a disciplinary hearing with union officials, and exhausted two tiers of internal appeal; his own refusal to take plea did not vitiate the process.
Section 41 requires explanation of reasons, notification of charges and an opportunity to be heard with a fellow employee or union representative present. The claimant was served with charges indicating the laws violated and their particulars, attended the hearing with union officials but declined to take plea, insisting the University had no jurisdiction over SACCO matters. The disciplinary committee considered witness evidence; appeals to the Staff Appeals Committee and University Council were heard and dismissed. The court held the mandatory procedure was satisfied.
Whether reinstatement and damages were available
No. The dismissal being lawful, the primary prayers collapsed; additionally, Article 75(3) disqualifies the claimant from holding any other public office. Only admitted CBA arrears of Kshs.127,435 were awarded.
Having found valid reason and fair procedure, the court held the dismissal was not unfair under section 45 of the Employment Act. It invoked Article 75(3) to bar reinstatement. The alternative salary/benefits prayer was vague and unsupported, and general and exemplary damages had no foundation. The admitted CBA arrears were awarded with interest, conditioned on clearance per section 6.8 of the Terms of Service.
Legal principles established
#- A public officer is not immune from disciplinary action by the employer for unethical conduct or breach of integrity committed off duty.
- Off-duty unethical conduct amounting to violation of Chapter Six of the Constitution, the Leadership and Integrity Act and the employer's HR policy constitutes a valid and fair reason for termination of employment.
- A person dismissed from office for contravention of Article 75(1) is disqualified from holding any other State office.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the claimant in the sum of Kshs.127,435 plus interest at court rates from the date of filing the suit, payable upon the claimant completing clearance as required by section 6.8 of the respondent's Terms of Service
- 2.Claim otherwise dismissed (declaration of unfair termination, reinstatement, salary/benefits, general and exemplary damages refused)
- 3.Each party to bear own costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (termination of employment challenged under section 45 of the Employment Act); the judgment does not cite a specific constitutional jurisdictional provision
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination was unfair, wrongful and unlawful; reinstatement; payment of salary from suspension to reinstatement
Dismissal was for valid reason and followed fair procedure; claimant further disqualified from holding public office under Article 75(3) of the Constitution
Alternative prayer for payment of salary and benefits
No basis laid before the court; lacked particulars and supporting evidence
General damages and exemplary damages
Dismissal was lawful; no foundation for damages
Costs
Since the suit has substantially failed, each party shall bear own costs of the suit.
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.
they cannot be the devil in their private life and an angel while on public duty. Such duality in the character of public oficer demeans the public ofice they hold
The above provision in the respondent's HR Policy Manual forms part of the claimant's employment contract and thereby brings his conduct, whether on duty or ofi duty, under the telescope and the whip of his employer
I enter judgment for the claimant in the sum of Kshs.127,435 plus interest as indicated above. Since the suit has substantially failed, each party shall bear own costs of the suit.
Consequently, I grant the said prayer for Kshs.127,435 plus interest at court rates from the date of filing the suit.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Loise v Murang’a University of Technology (Cause E032 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2192 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 24th July 2024 (ELRC, Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2192/eng@2025-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.