Kirubi v Regional Commissioner, Central Region & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 232 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Courts will not stop an ongoing workplace disciplinary process in Kenya unless the employer breaks the law, the contract, or basic fairness.
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 applicant has demonstrated a good basis for the court to interfere with internal disciplinary process before conclusion.
- 2.What appropriate orders should be made.
Key legal issues
#Whether the court should interfere with the employer's internal disciplinary process before its conclusion
The applicant failed to demonstrate any basis for intervention; the interdiction was justified and procedurally proper.
The court adopted the test in Geofirey Mworia v Water Resources Management Authority that intervention is warranted only where the employer contravenes the constitution, legislation or contract, acts manifestly unfairly, or the internal process is exhausted or impossible. On the facts, preliminary investigations were done, show cause letters issued, the matter went to the County HRMAC which recommended further investigation and interdiction, all consistent with clause 4.1.2(a) of the Discipline Manual. The applicant remains at liberty to litigate after exhaustion of the internal process.
Whether the applicant was entitled to certiorari and prohibition
Neither order was deserved; the interdiction decisions were justified and no evidence of harassment by the 3rd respondent existed.
Certiorari was refused because the impugned interdiction letters embodied decisions reached on justiciable reasons and proper procedure. Prohibition against the 3rd respondent was refused because the applicant adduced no evidence of abuse of power or harassment with baseless claims; the truth of the allegations awaits the employer's investigations.
Legal principles established
#- A court will very sparingly interfere in an employer's human resource functions, including disciplinary control; to intervene the applicant must show contravention of the constitution or legislation, breach of agreement, manifest unfairness, exhaustion of internal dispute procedure, or that the internal process has been rendered impossible.
- The general principle is that courts should not intervene in internal disciplinary proceedings until they are concluded, subject to developed exceptions.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Notice of Motion dated 5th June 2024
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the ELRC (Constitution Article 47 and Fair Administrative Action framework invoked in submissions)
Relief refused
#Order of certiorari quashing the 2nd Respondent's letter dated 19th January 2024 interdicting the Applicant
The interdiction was justified by valid reasons and followed proper procedure under clause 4.1.2 (a) of the Discipline Manual for Public Service
Order of certiorari quashing the 1st Respondent's letter dated 8th April 2024 interdicting the Applicant
Same as above - the decision was reached upon justiciable reasons and proper procedure
Order of prohibition directed to the 3rd Respondent against abuse of power and harassment
No evidence that the 3rd respondent engaged in abuse of power or harassment
Stay of further disciplinary proceedings pending hearing of the application
The court will not interfere with internal disciplinary proceedings before their conclusion absent demonstration of constitutional, statutory or contractual breach
Costs
Dismissed with costs to the respondents
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.
Consequently, I dismiss the Notice of Motion dated 5th June 2024 with costs to the respondents.
The applicant will, after all, be at liberty to move to court after the internal process is exhausted if the need arises.
I am satisfied that the interdiction of the applicant was justified by valid reasons and the procedure followed was proper.
To intervene, the applicant must show that the employer is proceeding in a manner that is in contravention of the provision 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
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kirubi v Regional Commissioner, Central Region & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 232 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/232/eng@2025-02-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.