Kiiru v Mpala Research Centre (Constitutional Petition E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2966 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that even private employers must run disciplinary hearings that are fair, or the process can be halted.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Denial of legal representation at disciplinary hearing
The Respondent's refusal to allow the Petitioner's Counsel to attend the disciplinary hearing breached her rights, and the fear of a 'courtroom drama' was rejected
The court held that internal disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial and require a different approach from courtroom litigation, so allowing a lawyer poses no significant prejudice, particularly in complex cases. The Petitioner's entitlement flows from Articles 41, 47 and 50(2)(g) of the Constitution and Section 4(5) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Impartiality of the disciplinary panel
The Petitioner's fears of bias were well founded because the Line Manager who investigated the matter insisted on being present at the hearing
Dr. Remtulla, who investigated the matter and who was directly involved in the investigations alongside the Respondent's Legal Counsel, insisted on attending the hearing. The court found this disclosed a desire to control the proceedings and outcome, undermining the objectivity and impartiality required of internal disciplinary processes.
Access to documents and witnesses
An employee facing disciplinary action is entitled to clear charges, sufficient time, relevant documents, and the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses
Relying on Rebecca Ann Maina v JKUAT and the Fair Administrative Action Act, the court affirmed that the employee must be afforded documents in the employer's possession that would assist the defence, and that any witness relied upon to indict the employee must be availed for cross-examination.
Application of the Fair Administrative Action Act to private employers
The Act applies to all state and non-state agencies, including private employers exercising quasi-judicial functions
Section 3 of the Act extends its application to any person exercising administrative authority or performing a judicial or quasi-judicial function, or whose action affects the legal rights of any person. Accordingly, the Respondent, a private employer, is bound by the procedural fairness guarantees in Section 4 of the Act.
Interlocutory injunctive relief against internal disciplinary process
All three Giella limbs were satisfied: prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience favouring the Petitioner
The court found a prima facie case on the procedural flaws; held that loss of employment cannot be remedied by damages; and, given the finding that the process was manifestly unfair, the balance of convenience tilted in the Petitioner's favour. Relief was nonetheless tailored as a stay pending rectification rather than outright prohibition.
Legal principles established
#- Employers in both the public and private sector are bound by the Fair Administrative Action Act
- A witness whose word is relied upon by the employer to indict an employee must be availed for cross-examination
- For internal disciplinary proceedings to pass muster, there must be demonstrable objectivity and impartiality; one person cannot be complainant, judge and executor
- Courts will not interfere with internal disciplinary processes except where the process is marred with irregularities or stage-managed
Court orders
#- 1.The disciplinary process commenced against the Petitioner is stayed pending rectification of the flaws identified in the ruling
- 2.The disciplinary process may resume and be continued subject to the Respondent availing the Petitioner the rights to an impartial disciplinary panel, legal representation, access to necessary documentation and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses
- 3.The costs of the Motion will be in the Petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitutional petition invoking Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution, with interlocutory relief sought under the Giella v Cassman Brown principles
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiiru v Mpala Research Centre (Constitutional Petition E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2966 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Constitutional Petition No E012 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2966/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.