Charana v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC); Kenya National Examination Council (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E189 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1304 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court halted the IEBC's disciplinary process against an employee because over a year of silence and delay made it unfair.
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 established a prima facie case with probability of success to warrant issuance of the orders sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case warranting interim orders against the ongoing disciplinary process
Yes. The court found triable issues, particularly the time taken in handling the complaint and the lack of communication since March 2024, and granted orders halting the flawed process.
The court noted the applicant had been on interdiction since March 2024 with no communication from the respondent, who admitted it was still authenticating certificates over a year later. Although the court reaffirmed its earlier position that it will not interfere with an employer's disciplinary measures unless necessary, it found the prolonged delay and non-communication raised triable issues amounting to a prima facie case, justifying only correction of the anomaly rather than wholesale pre-emption of the disciplinary process.
Legal principles established
#- An employer's unexplained inordinate delay of over a year in concluding an interdiction and disciplinary process, coupled with lack of communication, renders the process flawed and justifies the court halting it.
- A flawed disciplinary process should not proceed, but the employer remains entitled to commence a fresh process that complies with due process and applicable regulations.
Court orders
#- 1.That the disciplinary process underway is flawed and should not proceed
- 2.The respondent is free to institute a fresh and credible disciplinary process against the applicant following all due process and regulations established
- 3.Costs in the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3 and 12(1), (2), (3) & (4) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act No. 8 of 2014; Rule 45(1)(2)(3)(5) and Rule 68(a-g) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Relief refused
#Order of unconditional reinstatement as Constituency Elections Co-ordinator pending hearing of the application and petition
The court granted only the relief it found warranted on the prima facie case, namely halting the flawed disciplinary process while leaving the respondent free to initiate a fresh, lawful process; reinstatement was not granted at this interlocutory stage.
Costs
Costs in the petition.
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 respondents last communicated to him in March 2024 and they aver that they are still authenticating and verifying the applicants’ certificates over one(1) year down the line as the applicant remains on interdiction.
I do find that there seems to be triable issues raised by the applicant and especially so the time factor taken in handling the complaint and lack of communication thereof.
That the disciplinary process underway is fiawed and should not proceed. The respondent is however free to institute a fresh and credible disciplinary process against the applicant following all due process and regulations established. Costs in the petition.
Issues in the judgment
#Discrepancy in the date of interdiction: the Applicant avers he was interdicted on 14th March 2024, while the Respondent avers the interdiction letter is dated 19th March 2024.
The case number/petition number of the suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment as provided.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charana v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC); Kenya National Examination Council (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E189 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1304 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1304/eng@2025-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.