Gachukia v Kenya Institute of Supplies Management (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E133 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1772 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to stop a workplace disciplinary process, ruling that employees must let internal procedures finish before running to court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the petitioner has made out a case to warrant the court to issue a permanent injunction stopping the intended disciplinary action against the petitioner.
- 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs set out in the petition.
Key legal issues
#Whether a permanent injunction should issue to stop the employer's intended disciplinary action
No; the court will not permanently enjoin an employer's internal disciplinary process absent proof of violation or threat of rights
The court applied the principle that it interferes sparingly with employer human-resource functions, and that intervention in internal disciplinary processes is only for good cause to ensure procedural fairness. The petitioner's allegations of double jeopardy, bias and delay were found to lack merit: interdiction followed by suspension was grounded in the respondent's internal disciplinary policy manual, the process was not marked by inordinate delay, and the investigation involved independent professionals. Since the disciplinary process had not concluded and no violation was proved, a permanent injunction would be premature and unjustified.
Whether the petitioner was subjected to double jeopardy by interdiction and suspension on the same charges
The claim of double jeopardy failed because the process followed the respondent's internal disciplinary policy and procedure manual
The court found that the respondent's sequence of preliminary investigation leading to interdiction, followed by a further investigation leading to suspension and notice to show cause, was grounded in the internal disciplinary policy and procedure manual, not a duplication of processes. It also found the period from interdiction on 24th February 2023 to suspension on 6th June 2023 was not marked by inordinate delay.
Whether allegations of bias in the investigation committee were established
The allegations of bias and threat of rights violations lacked sound basis at the investigatory stage
The investigation and disciplinary process involved both staff and independent professionals, including two senior procurement professionals, IHRM members and an ICPAK member. On that basis the court held the petitioner's allegations of bias and predetermined outcome did not disclose a sound basis for judicial intervention at the investigatory stage.
Legal principles established
#- Courts will sparingly interfere with an employer's human resource and disciplinary functions unless there is constitutional or legislative contravention, breach of agreement, manifest unfairness, non-exhaustion of internal procedure, or conduct making internal resolution impossible
- A court may intervene in an internal disciplinary process for good cause shown, not necessarily to stop the process but to ensure procedural fairness and avoid violation of the employee's rights
- Conservatory orders bear a public-law connotation and should be granted on the inherent merit of a case bearing in mind the public interest and constitutional values
Court orders
#- 1.Petition dismissed
- 2.Respondent enjoined to adhere to its internal policy, guiding statutes and the Constitution in finalizing the pending disciplinary process
- 3.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (petition alleging violation of Articles 10, 27, 28, 41, 47, 50(1) and 236)
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction restraining the respondent from taking disciplinary action against the petitioner
Court found the injunction not merited; no violation proved and the disciplinary process is yet to be concluded
Declarations of unconstitutionality of the interdiction, suspension, investigation committee letters and investigation report
Petitioner did not prove any violation, breach or threat to his rights
Reinstatement and general damages for constitutional violations
Petition brought prematurely and lacking merit; remedies available only if rights violated on conclusion of the pending process
Costs
No order as to costs
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 petition was brought prematurely, lacks merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs
Accordingly, the court enjoins the respondent to adhere to its internal policy, guiding statutes and the constitution in finalizing the pending process failing which the petitioner would be entitled to remedies upon conclusion of the process thereof.
To interfere, the applicant must show that the employer is proceeding in a manner that is in contravention of the provisions of the constitution or legislation: or in breach of the agreement between the parties: or in a manner that is manifestly unfair in the circumstances of the case
The petitioner has not proved any violation, breach or threat to his rights set out in the petition by the intended conduct of a disciplinary hearing.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number/petition number is not stated anywhere in the judgment text
Citation of Kamau v Kenya Accreditation Service is garbled in the judgment ('[2021] KEELRC & (KLR)')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gachukia v Kenya Institute of Supplies Management (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E133 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1772 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Petition (unnumbered in judgment text). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1772/eng@2024-07-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.