SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Maro v Teachers Service Commission & 2 others (Civil Appeal E039 of 2022) [2025] KECA 936 (KLR) (23 May 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KECA 936 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
936
Citation
[2025] KECA 936 (KLR)
Decided
23 May 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the High Court of Kenya at MalindiCoramGW NGENYE-MACHARIA, Githinji, Okwengu, Waki
Holding

The appeal is dismissed as the appellant did not demonstrate how Regulation 139(3) of the TSC Code, 2015 is an affront to Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution.

Facts

The appellant, Athman Ade Maro, was employed as a Principal of Ganda Secondary School by the Teachers Service Commission. Allegations of improper conduct with a student arose, leading to investigations and disciplinary proceedings resulting in his interdiction and dismissal.

Issues

  1. Whether the dismissal of the appellant was in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 139(3) of the TSC Code, 2015 and Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the appellant's right to a fair hearing was violated during the disciplinary proceedings.

Reasoning

The court held that the appellant was given an opportunity to present and defend himself before the Teachers Service Commission. The court found that the appellant did not demonstrate how Regulation 139(3) of the TSC Code, 2015 is an affront to Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant shall bear the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (3)
  • R (on the application of Coke - Wallis) v Institute of Chartered Accountants of England & Wales [2011] UKSC 1
  • Regulation 139(3) of the TSC Code, 2015
  • Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case