Kamunyu v Ndegwa & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E013 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2914 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled Safaricom's rushed disciplinary process unfair and awarded the employee Sh5 million in damages.
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 Respondents violated Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution
- 2.Whether there was illegality and ultra vires in the suspension process
- 3.Whether there was malice, retaliation and bad faith
- 4.Whether there was inconsistency of allegations and lack of evidence
- 5.Whether the suspension was prolonged, punitive and unjustified
- 6.Whether the process leading to the Petitioner's suspension was procedurally and substantively fair
- 7.Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the suspension and disciplinary process violated Articles 41, 47 and 50
Yes - the process breached fair labour practices, fair administrative action and fair hearing
The court found the Petitioner was given only 24 hours to respond, had his systems locked and was denied access to documents, and that no witnesses were called before the disciplinary committee nor could he cross-examine accusers. These lapses breached Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, Section 41 of the Employment Act and the employer's own disciplinary policy, violating Articles 41, 47 and 50.
Whether the petition was res judicata / sub judice ELRC JR No. E066 of 2024
No - the judicial review matter became moot when the disciplinary process was overtaken by events
The Respondents argued the petition duplicated reliefs sought in ELRC JR No. E066 of 2024 and was an abuse of process. The court held the JR matter was moot after the Petitioner's dismissal and therefore the res judicata/sub judice objections failed.
Whether the declaration of nullity of suspension should issue
Refused as overtaken by events
Although breaches were found, the Petitioner had since been summarily dismissed on 28th March 2025, so an order declaring the suspension null and void would serve no purpose. The court instead awarded constitutional damages of Kshs 5 million and costs.
Legal principles established
#- A fair disciplinary hearing requires that witnesses be called and the accused be given a chance to cross-examine them; failure renders the hearing flawed
- 24 hours is inadequate time to prepare a defence to disciplinary allegations, negating procedural fairness
Court orders
#- 1.Damages of Kshs 5 million awarded to the Petitioner for breach of his constitutional rights
- 2.Respondents to pay costs of the petition plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Relief refused
#Declaration that the suspension letters dated 17th and 19th January 2025 are null and void
Overtaken by events following the Petitioner's summary dismissal
General and exemplary damages beyond the award made / permanent injunction against intimidation and retaliation
Court granted damages instead; injunction not expressly granted in final orders
Costs
The respondents shall pay costs of this petition plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment.
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.
In view of the way the disciplinary process was conducted against the petitioner, it is my finding that his right to fair hearing also under article 50 of the Constitution was also breached.
24 hours was not adequate to prepare his defence and this negates procedural fairness leading to the violation of his right to be subjected to a fair hearing and fair labour practice envisaged under article 41 of the constitutional.
Despite the fact that the respondent submits that this petition is res judicata, it is my finding that this is not the position as JR 066/24 became moot when the disciplinary process was overtaken by events and is still pending in court.
Having considered the breaches above, I do find that the petitioner is entitled to payment of damages for breach of his constitutional rights and which I award him at Kshs 5 million.
The respondents shall pay costs of this petition plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of his judgement.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment inconsistently states the loss figure as USD 2,201,402 and USD 2,202,402
Judgment inconsistently refers to ELRC JR No. E066 of 2024 and E066 of 2025
Judgment refers to a ruling dated 14th March 2024 which, in context, appears to be 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamunyu v Ndegwa & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E013 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2914 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 2nd February 2025 (ELRC, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2914/eng@2025-10-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.