Ekiru v Teachers Service Commission & another (Cause E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2666 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's employment court upheld a teacher's dismissal over a questionable certificate, confirming employers can fire for valid reasons if they follow fair procedure.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was substantively justified
Yes - the 1st Respondent had a valid reason to dismiss on the ground that the certificate was forged or invalid.
The 1st Respondent relied on verification from the 2nd Respondent (KNEC), which stated that no such candidate registered or sat for the 2006 IPTE examination, that the Kakuma centre did not exist in 2006, and that KNEC did not offer the IPTEC examination. The Claimant's claim of discrimination against a similarly placed Kenyan colleague was unsupported by evidence. On a balance of probabilities, the employer reasonably concluded the certificate was forged or invalid for employment in the Kenyan public education service.
Whether the disciplinary procedure complied with section 41 of the Employment Act
Yes - the procedure substantially complied with section 41 and the Code of Regulations for Teachers.
The Claimant was interdicted, invited to respond to the charges, invited to a disciplinary hearing which she attended and where she made oral submissions. She did not respond to the interdiction letter and did not evidence any formal request for the verification report. Given she knew the allegations well in advance, non-availment of the verification report did not render the process unfair.
Whether the IPTEC certificate was valid and lawfully obtained
No - the Claimant failed to prove validity on a balance of probabilities.
The Claimant relied only on a graduation booklet listing participants, which did not specify the qualification or curriculum. The 2nd Respondent denied issuing the certificate, stated the candidate did not sit the examination, and that the college code did not exist in 2006. Against that denial, the booklet was insufficient proof of authenticity.
Legal principles established
#- An employer terminates employment lawfully where there is a valid reason established on a balance of probabilities and fair procedure under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
- An employee alleging a defective disciplinary process must show they requested the documents they claim were withheld; notification of charges and an opportunity to be heard substantially comply with section 41.
- The burden lies on the party asserting validity of a certificate to prove it on a balance of probabilities, particularly where the issuing body denies authenticity.
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's claim is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, section 12 (employment and labour relations dispute); Employment Act, sections 41, 43 and 45
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ekiru v Teachers Service Commission & another (Cause E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2666 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2666/eng@2025-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.