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

Muchoki v Nakuru Water and Sanitation Services Company Limited (Cause E002 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 468 (KLR) (21 February 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEELRC 468 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
468
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 468 (KLR)
Decided
21 February 2023
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeEmployment DisputePostureInterlocutory ApplicationCoramHS WASILWA
Suspension is unlawful and set aside. Claimant ordered to return to work with back pay. Respondent free to institute proper disciplinary processes within 3 months.

Facts

Claimant Wanjiru Muchoki was employed by Respondent Nakuru Water and Sanitation Services Company Limited as an assistant Human Resource officer in 2009. She was promoted to acting Human Resource and Administration manager in early 2020 and confirmed in the position in June 2022. She was suspended without cause in November 2022.

Issues

  • Unlawfulness of suspension
  • Payment of withheld emoluments
  • Restraint from termination

Reasoning

Suspension was not preceded by notice or disciplinary hearing and is not supported by the HR manual. Process leading to suspension was irregular and awed.

Outcome

Claimant ordered to return to work with back pay

Orders

  • Order directing Respondent to unconditionally lift suspension and reinstate Claimant with no loss of seniority, privileges, salaries, allowances and benefits
  • Order directing Respondent to immediately pay Claimant withheld emoluments
  • Order restraining Respondent from terminating Claimant's employment

Remedies

  • Back pay
  • Restoration to work

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
  • HR Manual
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case