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

James Mungai Muhia v Kenya National Union of Teachers & 2 others [2020] KEELRC 30 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 30 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
30
Citation
[2020] KEELRC 30 (KLR)
Decided
12 October 2020
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLabor DisputePostureClaimant's AppealCoramNdolo, Nduma, Ongaya
Holding

The Court finds the suspension illegal, null, and void. The Claimant is entitled to Kshs. 378,805.80, interest at 14% per annum, and costs on the lower scale.

Facts

The Claimant, James Mungai Muhia, was suspended by the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) and its branch in Nakuru. The suspension was based on allegations of dishonesty, failure to obey BEC decisions, and abuse of office. The Claimant had previously been unlawfully terminated in 2018 for the same reasons.

Issues

  1. Whether the suspension was warranted and lawful
  2. Whether due procedure and principles of fair trial were followed
  3. What remedies are available to the Claimant
  4. Who should bear the costs of the suit

Reasoning

The Court agreed with Nduma J. in Joshua O. Ogalo v Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) & Another (supra) and upheld the retirement age clause of the KNUT constitution. The Court ordered the Respondents to pay the Claimant Kshs. 378,805.80 and interest, and to meet the Claimant's costs on the lower scale.

Outcome

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Payment of Kshs. 378,805.80 to the Claimant
  • Payment of interest at 14% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full
  • Meeting the Claimant's costs on the lower scale

Remedies

  • Payment of Kshs. 378,805.80
  • Interest at 14% per annum
  • Meeting the Claimant's costs on the lower scale

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure, 2nd Edition, (Nairobi) Law Africa) 2011
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