Noor v Maasai Mara University (Petition E020 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2886 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that suspending an employee for five years without resolving their case is unfair, awarding damages even though reinstatement was refused.
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 Petition is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the prolonged indefinite suspension of the Petitioner was unfair and unlawful
The suspension from August 2020, remaining unresolved over five years after the criminal proceedings were quashed, was unfair, unlawful and a violation of the Petitioner's constitutional rights
The Petitioner was suspended on 28th August 2020 following a corruption media feature and criminal charges. The High Court quashed the proceedings on 21st March 2024 and he was discharged on 16th May 2024, yet the Respondent took no disciplinary action, did not reinstate him and did not appeal. Relying on Victor Sammy Mutiso v TSC, a reasonable interdiction period is about three months; over five years is manifestly unreasonable and unfair.
Whether reinstatement was an appropriate remedy
Reinstatement was declined because the Petitioner had been out of his job since August 2020
Although the court found the suspension unfair, it held that after more than five years away from employment it was far-fetched to reinstate the Petitioner. Instead, it awarded general damages equivalent to ten months' salary to cover the constitutional violation, alongside unpaid salaries.
Whether the Respondent could take disciplinary measures connected to the quashed criminal trial
An order prohibiting disciplinary measures in connection with the trial and acquittal was granted, though overtaken by events
The criminal proceedings had been quashed by the High Court in Constitutional Petition E028 of 2022 and the Petitioner discharged via Criminal Revision No. E203 of 2024, with no appeal. The court accordingly granted the prayer barring disciplinary measures tied to those proceedings.
Legal principles established
#- A prolonged suspension of an employee that is not addressed within a reasonable time results in anxiety and raises concern; a reasonable period for interdiction is about three months
- Both substantive and procedural fairness must be established for a termination or disciplinary outcome to pass the fairness test
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the continued suspension of the Petitioner by the Respondent is unfair, unlawful and a violation of the Petitioner's constitutional rights
- 2.An order prohibiting the Respondent from any disciplinary measures against the Petitioner in connection with his trial and eventual acquittal
- 3.The Respondent to pay general damages equivalent to 10 months' salary covering the constitutional violation
- 4.Any unpaid salaries as worked out by the parties to be paid
- 5.Costs of the suit to the Petitioner
- 6.Interest at 14% per annum from date of judgment until full payment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Article 162(2) Constitution); petition for violation of constitutional rights in employment
Relief refused
#Reinstatement to former position and terms of employment
The Petitioner had been out of employment since August 2020; reinstatement after five years was not feasible
Liquidated damages of Kshs. 2,526,244 as specific prayer
Court instead awarded general damages equivalent to 10 months' salary and any unpaid salaries as computed by the parties
Costs
Costs of the suit to be paid to the Petitioner
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.
The court holds that the petition herein is merited and so grants the following part of his prayers
The Respondent to pay general damages equivalent to 10 months’ salary which will cover the Constitutional violation as well in prayer (a) above.
Interest at 14% per annum from date of this judgment on awards granted until full payment.
a prolonged suspension of an employee that is not addressed within a reasonable time only results in anxiety and is bound to raise concern
The Petitioner has been in limbo for over 5 years and that is not fair to any employee.
Issues in the judgment
#Prayer (d) for liquidated damages of Kshs. 2,526,244 was not expressly addressed as such; the court instead awarded general damages of 10 months' salary and unpaid salaries as computed by parties, leaving the quantification mechanism ambiguous
The judgment refers to the Petitioner's 'trial and eventual acquittal' although the criminal proceedings were quashed and he was discharged rather than acquitted
Petition alleges suspension on 28th August 2020 but salary last paid in full in August 2020 while a separate passage describes a 2019 media feature preceding 2020 charges; chronology is internally consistent but the initial suspension is stated as 'without pay' yet a later letter revised it to half salary, which the court does not reconcile when awarding unpaid salaries
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Noor v Maasai Mara University (Petition E020 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2886 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 9th October 2024 (ELRC Petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2886/eng@2025-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.