Nyagol v Judicial Service Commission & another
The bottom line
#Court reinstates Kshs 5M award plus back-pay for unfairly fired judicial staff.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court ruled that Judith Nyagol's dismissal by the Judicial Service Commission was unfair and violated her rights. She was not given a fair hearing—the charges she faced changed without notice, her employer failed to call witnesses, and disciplinary proceedings started while criminal charges were still pending. The court ordered the JSC to pay Kshs 5 million for lost career potential plus all salary withheld from her 2015 interdiction to her 2018 dismissal.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appeal meets the jurisdictional threshold under article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution; and if so,
- 2.Which legislation applies to the employment matters of judicial officers and staff: the Judicial Service Act or the Employment Act?
- 3.Whether the appellant’s right to a fair trial under article 50 of the Constitution was violated and if so, how.
- 4.If the answer to (iii) above is in the affirmative, whether the remedy of reinstatement is available to the appellant.
Key legal issues
#Whether the appeal meets the jurisdictional threshold under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution.
The appeal raises questions centred on the interpretation and application of the Constitution, specifically the alleged violation of the appellant's rights under Articles 47 and 50. Therefore, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.
The court considered the pleadings, history, and trajectory of the matter, noting that the dispute before the ELRC was anchored on whether there was any violation of the appellant's constitutional rights. This invariably entails an exercise of evaluation of questions around the interpretation and application of the Constitution, thus meeting the threshold under Article 163(4)(a).
Which legislation applies to the employment matters of judicial officers and staff: the Judicial Service Act or the Employment Act?
The Judicial Service Act (JSA), being a special law, supersedes the Employment Act (EA) to the extent that it specifically provides for certain matters. The EA applies generally and where there are gaps in the JSA.
Applying the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant (general law yields to special law), the court held that the JSA, as a special law for matters of appointment, removal, and discipline of judges, judicial officers, and staff, supersedes the EA. The EA will apply in matters relating to employment and other consequential aspects generally and where there are gaps in the JSA.
Whether the appellant's right to a fair trial under Article 50 of the Constitution was violated.
Yes, the appellant's right to a fair trial was violated. The disciplinary proceedings were commenced contrary to section 18(2) of the Third Schedule of the JSA, the charges constituted double jeopardy, the appellant was dismissed on charges different from those she was heard on, and the respondents failed to call witnesses or produce evidence, shifting the burden of proof to the appellant.
The court found that the Chief Justice violated rule 18(2) of the Third Schedule of the JSA by commencing disciplinary proceedings while criminal proceedings were pending. The charges of August 22, 2017, were substantially similar to the criminal charges, violating the principle of double jeopardy. The dismissal letter referred to the September 4, 2015 charges, while the hearing was on the August 22, 2017 charges, leaving the appellant in limbo. The respondents failed to call witnesses or produce evidence, shifting the burden of proof to the appellant.
Whether the remedy of reinstatement is available to the appellant.
The remedy of reinstatement is not available to the appellant because the statutory timelines of 3 years from the date of dismissal had lapsed, and the appellant did not demonstrate that the Court of Appeal failed to exercise its discretion judiciously.
The court noted that the JSA does not speak to remedies, so the provisions of the EA and ELRCA apply. Section 49(3) of the EA and section 12(3)(vii) of the ELRCA provide for reinstatement within 3 years of dismissal. The Court of Appeal declined reinstatement because the statutory timelines had lapsed, a valid consideration. The appellant did not set out how the Court of Appeal failed to exercise this discretion judiciously, so the Supreme Court declined to interfere.
Legal principles established
#- If a special law like the Judicial Service Act covers a specific area, the general Employment Act only fills gaps left by that law.
- Double jeopardy applies only when you've been convicted or acquitted of a charge, not when two different proceedings run at the same time.
- Disciplinary proceedings cannot start while criminal proceedings over the same matter are still pending.
- An employee must know the exact charges they face; firing someone on different charges than those in the hearing violates fair hearing rights.
- The employer must prove its case—it cannot shift the burden to the employee or rely on unproven allegations.
Court orders
#- 1.The judgment of the Court of Appeal dated February 23, 2024 is hereby set aside to the extent that it set aside the judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
- 2.The judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court dated October 7, 2021 is hereby reinstated in the following terms: (i) A declaration is hereby issued that the dismissal of the appellant was unfair and unjustified as provided under section 45(2) of the Employment Act. (ii) The 1st respondent shall pay the appellant Kenya Shillings Five Million (Kshs 5,000,000/=) for the unfair and unjustified dismissal which cut off the appellant’s career prematurely. (iii) The 1st respondent shall pay the appellant all withheld salary from the time of interdiction on September 4, 2015 to the time of her dismissal on 21/8/2018. (iv) The 1st respondent shall pay the costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment.
- 3.The 1st respondent shall bear the costs in the Court of Appeal and in this court.
- 4.For the avoidance of doubt, all other prayers in the appeal are dismissed.
- 5.We hereby direct that the sum of Kshs 6,000/= deposited as security for costs upon lodging of this appeal, be refunded to the appellant.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Civil Appeal No. E097 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Reinstatement of the appellant to her rank without loss of salaries and benefits
The Court of Appeal declined to issue an order of reinstatement because the statutory timelines had lapsed, a valid consideration set out in the ELRCA and the EA. The appellant did not set out how, if at all, the Court of Appeal failed to exercise this discretion judiciously.
Costs
The 1st respondent shall bear the costs in the Court of Appeal and in this court.
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 JSA, being a special law for matters of appointment, removal and discipline of judges, judicial officers and staff supersedes the EA, to the extent that it specifically provides for certain matters.
double jeopardy applies when there has been a previous conviction or an acquittal on a charge, not when 2 proceedings over the same cause are subsisting.
A person has a right to know the exact case, including charges, they are facing. This enables them to mount a defence, decide which witnesses to call, if any, and prepare adequately for the hearing.
it was upon them to prove their case and not leave it to conjecture or even worse, to shift the burden of proof to the appellant. To that extent, we find that failure to avail witnesses was fatal to the respondents’ case, trial and ultimate decision.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal dated February 23, 2024 is hereby set aside to the extent that it set aside the judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
The 1st respondent shall pay the appellant Kenya Shillings Five Million (Kshs 5,000,000/=) for the unfair and unjustified dismissal which cut off the appellant’s career prematurely.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#JSA now trumps Employment Act
When advising judicial sector clients, remember the Judicial Service Act is the primary law for discipline and removal. The Employment Act only applies where the JSA is silent. Challenge any disciplinary action that starts while criminal proceedings are pending—it violates section 18(2) of the JSA's Third Schedule. Also verify that dismissal charges match exactly what the employee was heard on.
No shifting burden of proof
Employers cannot fire an employee and expect the employee to prove innocence. The burden stays on you to call witnesses and produce evidence. If you handle discipline while criminal proceedings are active, you risk unfair dismissal claims. Also, never change an employee's charges after the hearing—the dismissal letter must match the exact charges the employee was given notice of and heard on.
Know your hearing rights
If you work for a Kenyan public body like the Judicial Service Commission, you still have employment rights. Your employer must tell you the exact charges before your hearing and cannot fire you on different grounds afterward. Disciplinary action cannot start while you have pending criminal charges for the same conduct. If your employer fails to call witnesses or prove their case, you may win an unfair dismissal claim.
Frequently asked questions
#Can I be fired for the same reason I'm being charged criminally in Kenya?+
Not necessarily. While double jeopardy under Article 50(2)(o) doesn't stop two separate proceedings for the same incident, specific laws like the Judicial Service Act prohibit starting disciplinary action while criminal proceedings are pending. Check your workplace's special rules.
What compensation did Judith Nyagol get from the Supreme Court?+
The Supreme Court ordered the Judicial Service Commission to pay her Kshs 5 million for unfair dismissal that cut short her career, plus all salary withheld from her September 4, 2015 interdiction until her August 21, 2018 dismissal, plus costs.
Does the Employment Act apply to Judicial Service Commission staff in Kenya?+
Yes, but only where the Judicial Service Act doesn't have specific rules. The Supreme Court confirmed the JSA as the special law for judicial officers and staff discipline, with the Employment Act filling gaps for general employment matters.
What happens if my employer changes the charges after my disciplinary hearing in Kenya?+
That violates your right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution. You must know the exact case against you to prepare your defence. The Supreme Court ruled that dismissing an employee on different charges than those heard is unlawful.
Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kamande v Judicial Service Commission[2025] KESC 48 (KLR)15 Aug 2025followed
- Ondari v County Government of Kisii & 3 others (Petition E008 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1793 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1793 (KLR)19 Jun 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyagol v Judicial Service Commission & another", Case Analysis (2024). Petition E015 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2024/69/eng@2024-11-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.