Wasamu v Judicial Service Commission (Cause E077 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2184 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a fair dismissal but ordered the Judiciary to pay half salary for the entire suspension period because it unfairly backdated the dismissal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was unfair termination of employment
- 2.Whether the claimant should be reinstated to his position with the respondent
- 3.Whether the remedies sought should be allowed
Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was for a valid reason and fair procedure
Justified - claimant failed to account for Ksh. 101,111, admitted procedural breaches, and was given fair process
The claimant was given a notice to show cause, access to records, time to respond, and a disciplinary hearing. He admitted issuing receipts in error, failing to countersign cancellations and being unable to account for Ksh. 10,000. His failure to account for Ksh. 91,110 and 10,111 constituted negligence amounting to gross misconduct under section 44 of the Employment Act warranting summary dismissal.
Whether backdating the summary dismissal to the date of suspension was lawful
Unlawful; the unpaid half-salary during suspension is due
The policy manual and schedules to the Judicial Service Act cannot negate substantive employment law. Under section 18(4) of the Employment Act a summarily dismissed employee is entitled to all moneys due up to the date of dismissal. The claimant had no control over the disciplinary process, so backdating was an unfair labour practice.
Whether reinstatement and other remedies were available
Reinstatement, notice pay and compensation refused; only suspension-period half salary awarded
Since the summary dismissal was justified, reinstatement was unavailable and the alternative remedies of notice pay and compensation followed the fate of the dismissal claim per the cited Court of Appeal authority. House allowance, transport allowance and service pay claims lacked evidential or contractual foundation.
Legal principles established
#- Backdating a summary dismissal to the date of suspension, when the employee has no control over the disciplinary process, is an unfair labour practice and the employee is entitled to all moneys, allowances and benefits due up to the date of dismissal
- Summary dismissal is open to an employer for gross misconduct provided the employee is allowed to attend and make representations in defence
Court orders
#- 1.Claim dismissed except for payment of Ksh. 1,123,500 being half salary accruing during the suspension period
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated in judgment (first-instance employment and labour relations claim under the Employment Act)
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination of employment was unfair
Summary dismissal found justified on the under-banking of Ksh. 101,111
Reinstatement without loss of benefits
Dismissal justified; reinstatement unavailable
Notice pay
Alternative remedies unavailable where summary dismissal is justified
12 months' compensation
Summary dismissal justified; compensation unavailable
House allowance, transport allowance and service pay for suspension period
No evidence or contractual basis established for these claims
Costs
Each party to bear its 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.
Accordingly, the claim is without merit save for the payment of Ksh. 1,123,500, which is half the salary accruing during the suspension period. Each party is to bear its costs.
The policy and procedures manual and schedules to the Judicial Service Act cannot negate substantive law protecting an employee's rights in their employment.
Backdating the date of the summary dismissal from 16 August 2023 to 30 July 2021 is an unfair labour practice.
Where an employee is summarily dismissed for lawful cause, the employee shall, on dismissal be paid all moneys, allowances and benefits due to him up to the date of his dismissal.
Issues in the judgment
#Suspension date inconsistency - the judgment elsewhere records the suspension letter as dated 30 July 2021 and dismissal effective from 30 July 2021
Amount arithmetic - award computed at Ksh. 1,123,500 whereas the claimant pleaded Ksh. 1,132,500 for the same 25-month half-salary claim
Date typographical error in disciplinary hearing invitation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wasamu v Judicial Service Commission (Cause E077 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2184 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2184/eng@2025-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.