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

Nixon Otieno Awuor & 4 others v Inspector General of the National Police Service & 4 others [2018] KEELRC 1775 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1775 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1775
Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1775 (KLR)
Decided
11 June 2018
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment and Labour RelationsPosturePetition for Review of Disciplinary ActionCoramHON. LADY JUSTICE HELLEN WASILWA
Holding

The employer's disciplinary action was not justified as the process was hasty and improper, and the employees were not given a fair chance to respond.

Facts

Petitioners were employees of the County Government of Nairobi who alleged theft of funds from the cash office. The theft was reported on social media and led to disciplinary action by the employer.

Issues

  1. Whether the employer's disciplinary action was justified
  2. Whether the employer's process in uncovering the alleged theft was proper

Reasoning

The court found that the employer's process was flawed and that the employees were not given a fair opportunity to respond. The court agreed with the employer's discretion in imposing sanctions but found the process to be improper.

Outcome

The Petitioners' orders are dismissed. They are free to respond to show cause letters and the disciplinary process will continue.

Orders

  • The Petitioners are free to respond to show cause letters within 14 days from the date of this judgment.
  • The Respondents are free to restart their internal disciplinary process to ensure fairness.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Judicial Service Commission vs Gladys Boss Shollei (Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2014)
  • Nampak Corrugated Wadeville vs Khoza (JA 14/98(1998) ZALAC 24)
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case