Murira v Kenya Medical Training College & another (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E177 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2096 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that dismissing an employee without a disciplinary hearing is unconstitutional, awarding her KES 2 million in damages plus retirement benefits.
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 was condemned unheard and thus dismissed unfairly
- 2.Whether the petitioner's rights under the Constitution were infringed upon
- 3.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the remedies sought
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the dismissal
The dismissal was unfair because the petitioner was not invited to a disciplinary hearing before dismissal; issuance of a show cause letter and her response did not substitute for a hearing
The court traced the chronology: show cause letter of 5th May 2023, response of 12th May 2023, suspension on 31st May 2023 and dismissal letter of 10th July 2023. It found no evidence of a disciplinary hearing before dismissal. Section 41 of the Employment Act, section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act and Article 50(1) require a hearing on misconduct, so the dismissal was unfair.
Constitutional violations
The dismissal without a hearing infringed the petitioner's rights under Articles 41, 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution
Having found the dismissal procedurally unfair, the court held that dismissing the petitioner without an opportunity to be heard breached her constitutional rights to fair labour practices, fair administrative action and a fair hearing, entitling her to constitutional damages.
Preliminary objection on constitutional avoidance and precision of pleadings
The objection did not succeed; the petition proceeded despite the respondents' argument that the dispute should have been an ordinary employment claim
The respondents invoked the doctrine of constitutional avoidance (CCK v Royal Media Services) and Anarita Karimi Njeru precision, arguing the petition was really an unfair termination claim and pleaded no specific violations. The court did not uphold the objection and proceeded to determine the petition, finding actual infringements of Articles 41, 47 and 50(1).
Remedies for unfair and unconstitutional dismissal
Petitioner awarded salary and allowances to retirement date, all retirement benefits, KES 2 million constitutional damages and costs with interest
Since reinstatement was not practical given the retirement date of 19th November 2023, the court fashioned remedies treating the petitioner as having retired on that date, payable retirement benefits, exemplary constitutional damages of KES 2 million for the breach of rights, and costs with interest from the judgment date.
Legal principles established
#- No termination on grounds of misconduct may proceed without a hearing under Section 41 of the Employment Act
- A dismissal without an opportunity to be heard breaches Articles 41, 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution
- Article 50(1) embodies the audi alteram partem rule that no person should be condemned unheard
Court orders
#- 1.The petitioner be considered to have retired and be paid all her salaries and allowances up to her retirement on 19th November 2023
- 2.The petitioner be paid all her retirement benefits
- 3.The respondents to pay the petitioner damages for breach of her constitutional rights to the tune of 2 million (KES 2,000,000)
- 4.The respondents to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 41, 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution and the Employment Act 2007 (original jurisdiction of the ELRC)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the dismissal was null and void ab initio, revocation of the dismissal letter and reinstatement with promotion to lecturer in Human Nutrition
The court instead treated the petitioner as having retired on 19th November 2023 rather than reinstating her
Alternative relief of retirement compensation in place of the dismissal
Largely subsumed into the award of salaries, allowances and retirement benefits; the pleaded heads of harassment-restraint orders were not granted
Costs
The respondents to pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the 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.
There is no indication that the petitioner was thereafter invited for any disciplinary hearing. Section 41 of the Employment Act 2007 is clear that no termination should proceed without a hearing on the grounds of misconduct.
In view of the fact that the petitioner was condemned unheard by the respondent before being given an opportunity to present her case, I find that she was unfairly terminated.
The petitioner be considered to have retired and be paid all her salaries and allowances up to her retirement on 19th November 2023.
The respondents to pay the petitioner damages for breach of her constitutional rights to the tune of 2 million.
The respondents to pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The court's analysis addresses only the hearing failure and does not expressly resolve the respondents' preliminary objection on constitutional avoidance, despite submissions being made on it
The judgment does not state the petition's case number, only the filing date
The judgment uses 'claimant' and 'petitioner' interchangeably in its analysis
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murira v Kenya Medical Training College & another (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E177 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2096 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 24th October 2024 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2096/eng@2025-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.