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
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was justified.
- 2.Whether the 1st Respondent followed the due process in dismissing the Claimant from employment.
- 3.Whether the Claimant's International Primary Teachers Education Certificate (IPTEC No. IPTECxxxxxxx) was valid and lawfully obtained.
- 4.Whether the reliefs sought are merited.
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
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, section 12 (employment and labour relations dispute); Employment Act, sections 41, 43 and 45
Relief refused
#Declaration that the Claimant was properly trained at the defunct Kakuma Teachers Training College and qualified to be awarded P1 Certificate No. PTECxxxxxxx
The Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving the certificate was valid and lawfully obtained; the 2nd Respondent denied its authenticity and its records did not show the examination or the college.
Declaration that the termination was unfair; reinstatement and back salary
The termination was substantively justified (valid reason - forged certificate) and procedurally fair under section 41 of the Employment Act and the Code of Regulations for Teachers.
Alternative damages of Kshs. 13,432,230 as particularized
The claim was dismissed in its entirety as unproven.
Declaration against the 2nd Respondent that Certificate No. IPTECxxxxxxx was lawfully issued
Reliance solely on the graduation booklet was insufficient to establish the certificate's authenticity against the 2nd Respondent's denial.
Costs of the suit
No orders as to costs were made.
Costs
No orders as to costs - each party to bear their own 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.
Section 45(2) of the Employment Act prohibits an employer from terminating the contract of an employee except for valid reason and upon compliance with fair procedure.
the 1st Respondent had a valid reason to doubt the authenticity of the Certificate presented by the Claimant and, on a balance of probabilities, reasonably concluded that it was forged or invalid for purposes of employment in the Kenyan public education service.
The mere fact that she was not availed the verification report does not, in the circumstances of this case, render the process procedurally unfair.
the Court finds that the Claimant has not discharged the burden of proving that the certificate presented was valid and lawfully obtained.
The Claimant's claim is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The coram/signature block names the judge as 'M. ONYANGO' but the judgment text does not state the claimant's full certificate number or the case number; the judgment as provided lacks a caption/case number, making the citation fields unverifiable from the document.
The judgment refers to the Claimant being dismissed 'on 1st July 2021' in submissions but the claim itself states the termination letter was dated 1st July 2021 and that she 'was until 23rd June 2021' employed - an internal inconsistency in the effective date of dismissal.
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.