Oruma v Central Rift Valley Water Works Development Agency (CRVWWDA) & another (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E005 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1962 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a CEO's challenge to his suspension, ruling that employers can investigate without a hearing before requiring an employee to show cause.
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 petition meets the threshold for a constitutional petition (precision and supporting affidavit)
- 2.Whether the issues raised are justiciable/ripe given the ongoing internal disciplinary process
- 3.Whether the Board had jurisdiction/mandate to initiate and undertake disciplinary proceedings while EACC investigations were ongoing
- 4.Whether the Petitioner's suspension, interdiction and Notice to Show Cause violated his rights to fair hearing, fair administrative action and dignity
- 5.Whether the court should intervene in the internal disciplinary process
- 6.Whether allegedly illegally obtained exhibits should be expunged
- 7.Who should bear costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the compulsory leave and Notice to Show Cause violated fair hearing and fair administrative action rights
No violation demonstrated; compulsory leave and a NTSC mark the start of investigations and precede any disciplinary hearing
The court noted the letter of 26th September 2023 sent the Petitioner on leave pending investigations, and the 19th February 2024 letter required him to show cause within 14 days. The Petitioner chose not to respond but to file the petition. Citing the Humphrey Makwicha Nyongesa case, the court held this was the start of an investigation, so questions of being heard before a NTSC did not arise, and no Article 47 breach was demonstrated.
Whether the disciplinary process could proceed while EACC investigations were ongoing
The court had already ruled on 4th June 2024 that internal disciplinary processes are independent of criminal/EACC processes; it declined to revisit the issue
The judge referred to the earlier ruling of 4th June 2024 in the same matter which allowed the disciplinary process to proceed, holding that internal disciplinary processes are independent of the criminal process and there is no bar to a disciplinary process continuing while police/EACC investigations are ongoing. Having pronounced himself on the same issue, the court declined to revisit it.
Whether the petition met the Anarita Karimi precision standard and evidentiary requirements
The petition failed: the HR Manual relied upon was not annexed and no provision breached was identified
The court observed that the petition was filed without a supporting affidavit and the HR Manual said to be flawed was not annexed. The Petitioner did not indicate what the 1st Respondent did or omitted to do against the HR Manual, and rushed to court immediately after being sent on compulsory leave and asked to show cause.
Legal principles established
#- A petitioner alleging breach of an employer's HR Manual or policy must plead and point out the specific provisions breached; compulsory leave and a notice to show cause constitute the investigative stage of a disciplinary process at which no prior hearing is owed
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is dismissed
- 2.There will be no order of costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22(1), 23 and 165 of the Constitution; Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment-related constitutional violations
Relief refused
#Declarations of breach of Articles 10(2)(b), 27, 25(c), 47 and injunction stopping disciplinary proceedings and quashing of the letters of 26th September 2023 and 19th February 2024
Petitioner did not demonstrate breach of the HR Manual; the compulsory leave and Notice to Show Cause were the start of an investigation, and the petitioner declined to participate in the process
Damages for violation or threatened violation of constitutional rights
No violation of rights was established; the process had not matured into a disciplinary hearing
Costs
No order of costs - each party to bear their own 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.
Having pronounced myself on the same issue, I will not revisit it in this judgment.
It is indeed the responsibility of the Petitioner who has alleged breach of the HR Manual to point out the provisions in the HR Manual which have been breached and this the Petitioner failed to do.
As held in Humphrey Makwicha Nyongesa case, this process was indeed a start of an investigation process and in the circumstances of the case issues of being heard before a NTSC is issued would not have arisen.
His averment that his constitutional rights were breached is found without merit and I dismiss it accordingly. There will be no order of costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The petition's relief (h) refers to a letter dated 19th March, 2024 whereas the body of the judgment and the relief (e) reference a Notice to Show Cause dated 19th February, 2024
The case name is inconsistently spelled in the judgment as 'Humphrey Makokha Nyongesa' in submissions and 'Humphrey Makwicha Nyongesa' in the court's holding
The judgment indicates the cause was transferred and dismissed as ELRC Petition No. E005 of 2023 in the narrative, but the 1st Respondent's replying affidavit states that petition was unrelated, and the court does not resolve the discrepancy in the record number of the present petition
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Oruma v Central Rift Valley Water Works Development Agency (CRVWWDA) & another (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E005 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1962 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELRC Petition No. E012 of 2024 (Petition dated 26th February, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1962/eng@2024-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.