Kennedy v International Rescue Committee Kenya; Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (Interested Party) (Petition E012 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 360 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court awarded a doctor over Kshs 3.5 million because her employer fired her without calling any witnesses to a disciplinary hearing.
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's dismissal was fair and lawful
- 2.Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were denied or violated
- 3.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent had valid and fair reasons to terminate the petitioner's employment
No valid reason was established; no witness was called at the disciplinary hearing and there was no evidence that the petitioner ignored the patient
Section 43 places the burden on the employer to prove the reasons for termination. The court found that no witness testified at the disciplinary hearing, the petitioner's account was not disputed, and there was no indication she ignored the patient. The internal maternal death review attributed the death to systemic operational inefficiencies rather than her conduct, undermining the asserted ground of negligence.
Whether the disciplinary procedure adopted was fair
The procedure was flawed; the employer failed to call witnesses or disclose the evidence relied upon, breaching section 41 of the Employment Act and Article 41 fair labour practices
Neither party produced the invitation letter to the disciplinary hearing, so the preparation period could not be ascertained. From the minutes, accusations were read to the petitioner but no witness testified against her, making it impossible to know what evidence the employer relied on. This failure of procedure constituted a breach of Article 41 of the Constitution on fair labour practices.
Whether the respondent usurped the jurisdiction of the KMPDC under section 4(j) of the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Act
No; an employer may conduct its own internal disciplinary processes notwithstanding the Council's statutory mandate over professional misconduct
While section 4(j) empowers the Council to regulate the conduct of medical practitioners and initiate disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct, the court held that this does not bar an employer from conducting internal disciplinary processes under employment law. The petitioner's contention of usurpation was dismissed as without merit.
Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated
Only Article 41 (fair labour practices) was breached, by reason of the flawed disciplinary process and unfair termination
Having found the respondent flouted proper disciplinary processes and failed to establish valid reasons for dismissal, the court held that the failure to adhere to procedural dictates amounted to a breach of Article 41 of the Constitution guaranteeing fair labour practices. No other discrete violations under Articles 27, 28, 47, 48 or 50 were separately pronounced upon.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must call witnesses whose evidence it relies on in a disciplinary hearing and allow the employee to cross-examine them; failure renders termination procedurally unfair
- Where no valid reason for termination is proved, the termination is unfair under section 45(2) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the decision to terminate the petitioner's employment vide the letter dated 20/9/23 was unlawful, unfair and unconstitutional
- 2.An award of damages of Kshs. 2,000,000 for the wrongful and unlawful termination of the petitioner's employment
- 3.An award of compensation equivalent to 8 months' salary (Kshs. 1,538,096) for the unfair and wrongful termination, subject to statutory deductions
- 4.The respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 162(2) (employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court)
Relief refused
#Order of certiorari quashing the termination and judicial review orders quashing all disciplinary proceedings
The court did not issue the certiorari/judicial review orders sought; it instead granted declarations and monetary awards
Declaration that the respondent contravened Section 4(j) of the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Act by assuming jurisdiction over professional negligence
The court held the employer was entitled to run its own internal disciplinary process
Costs
The respondent will pay cost of this suit plus interest at court rates w.e.f the date of this judgment
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 witness the employer relies upon must be called to testify and the employee must be given an opportunity to cross examine them.
In the circumstances of the case, the existence of valid reason to warrant termination are not established.
It is therefore my finding that the respondent breached the petitioner’s rights under article 41 of the Constitution on fair labour practices.
I find the termination of the petitioner unfair and unjustified.
However, this cannot be a bar to an employer initiating their own internal disciplinary processes as per the employment law.
An award for damages against the respondents to the tune of 2 million for the wrongful and unlawful termination of the petitioner’s employment.
An award of compensation to the petitioner equivalent to 8 months salary for the unfair and wrongful termination based on the unfairness meted against her
The respondent will pay cost of this suit plus interest at court rates w.e.f the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the medical regulator inconsistently as 'KMPDU' in the analysis paragraph, whereas elsewhere it is 'KMPDC' (Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council)
Arithmetic in the compensation order is internally inconsistent: 8 x 256,349.30 stated as equalling Kshs 1,538,096, and the salary figure (256,349.30) differs from the pleaded basic salary (256,346.30)
Inconsistent reference to section 43 of the Employment Act as dated 2007 vs 41 of 'the employment act 2007'; the Employment Act is cited variably as 'No. 11 of 2007' and 'Employment Act 2007'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kennedy v International Rescue Committee Kenya; Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (Interested Party) (Petition E012 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 360 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition No. E012 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/360/eng@2025-02-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.