Muthoni v Teachers Service Commission (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E698 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2437 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court voided a teacher's dismissal because the TSC disciplinary panel was wrongly constituted, awarding her over Kshs 1.8 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.When the claimant was to retire as per her age and records.
- 2.Whether there were valid reasons to warrant the claimant's termination.
- 3.Whether the claimant was subjected to a fair disciplinary panel.
- 4.What remedies the claimant is entitled to.
Key legal issues
#Whether the disciplinary panel was properly constituted
The panel was wrongly constituted because it lacked a member of the Commission as chair as mandatorily required by Regulation 151(3) of the Code of Regulations for Teachers, 2015, rendering the proceedings void ab initio.
Regulation 151(3) requires the headquarters discipline panel to comprise at least one member of the Commission as chair, two directors or their representatives, an officer from the discipline division, and any technical officer. The panel that heard the claimant comprised three members with no commissioner as chair and no technical officer. The court held the wording mandatory, with no room for a non-member to chair, and relying on the Mutava decision, found the proceedings void ab initio.
Whether there were valid reasons for the termination
The reasons stated (failure to seek PS approval for extra levies, procurement non-compliance, awarding her company tenders) were largely supported by the evidence, with the claimant admitting ownership of Kawisa Suppliers and failing to prove the requisite authority to levy charges, but the surcharge was invalid as it was not a charge presented at the hearing.
The claimant insisted she had authority to levy extra charges but failed to prove it; witnesses testified no permission was given. She admitted the company was hers though claiming she had given it to another person, and cheques were drawn in her name. However, the Kshs 1,570,000 surcharge for signing cheques during interdiction was never presented as a charge during the disciplinary hearing, making the surcharge decision irregular and null and void.
Whether the claimant's disciplinary hearing occurred after her retirement
The disciplinary hearing on 18th May 2021 occurred while the claimant was still in employment (retirement due 14th June 2021), but the review appeal determined on 8th March 2022 was conducted after retirement and was irregular.
The claimant was born on 15th June 1961 and would attain the retirement age of 60 on 14th June 2021. The hearing of 18th May 2021 therefore preceded retirement. However, the claimant's contention that she was heard after retirement held true in respect of the review, which was heard and dismissed on 8th March 2022, well after the retirement date.
What remedies the claimant is entitled to
The court awarded accumulated salaries from interdiction to dismissal, unpaid May and June 2021 salary, six months' salary as compensation for unlawful termination, unremitted pension for the interdiction period, and all pension and terminal dues as calculated by the respondent, plus costs and interest.
Having found the disciplinary panel wrongly constituted and the termination and subsequent decisions null and void, the court found for the claimant and awarded monetary remedies: Kshs 736,398 accumulated salaries, Kshs 163,644 unpaid salary, six months' salary as compensation, unremitted pension contributions during interdiction, and terminal dues as calculated by the respondent, together with costs and interest at court rates.
Legal principles established
#- A disciplinary panel constituted in breach of the mandatory composition requirements of Regulation 151(3) of the TSC Code of Regulations for Teachers, 2015 has no competence, and its proceedings and any decisions emanating from it are void ab initio.
- A surcharge imposed on a charge not presented to the employee at the disciplinary hearing is irregular and void for want of a hearing.
- Disciplinary proceedings conducted against an employee after retirement, including a review, are irregular.
Court orders
#- 1.The sum of kshs 736,398/- being accumulated salaries from the date of interdiction to the date of dismissal
- 2.Unpaid salary for May and June 2021 of kshs 163,644/- as prayed
- 3.6 months' salary as compensation for the unlawful termination (6 x 163,644 = kshs 981,864), total kshs 1,881,906 less statutory deductions
- 4.Unremitted pension during the period the claimant was on interdiction
- 5.Payment of all her pension and terminal dues as calculated by the respondent
- 6.The respondents to pay costs of this 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
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Article 162(2) of the Constitution as invoked for the ELRC); the judgment does not expressly cite the enabling provision
Relief refused
#Damages for unlawful termination equivalent to 12 months' gross salary (claimant sought 12 months; court awarded 6 months)
The court exercised its discretion to award only 6 months' salary as compensation for the unlawful termination.
Reinstatement of licence with the Respondent
The court found the termination void due to an improperly constituted panel but did not order reinstatement of the claimant's licence or removal from the Register of Teachers; the final orders made no provision for this head of relief.
Certificate of service
Though prayed for, no order for a certificate of service appears in the final remedies awarded by the court.
Costs
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from 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.
It is therefore the finding of this court that the claimant having been subjected to a wrongly constituted disciplinary panel the proceedings therein are void ab initio and therefore her termination and any subsequent proceedings and decisions emanating from such panel are null and void.
The decision then to subject her to surcharge for signing cheques during her interdiction was irregular and null and void for want of proper hearing on the matter.
The appeal was therefore considered and determined after her retirement which was therefore irregular.
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgment.
Unremitted pension during the period of declaration that the claimant is on interdiction.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency on the claimant's retirement date: the court computes retirement as 14th June 2021, the claimant testified her payslip indicated 31st May 2021, and paragraph 27 of the claim pleads backdating from 30th June 2021 to 30th May 2021, yet the court in the same paragraph finds the claimant's contention that she was heard after retirement 'true'.
The respondent's pleaded date of the disciplinary hearing invitation/hearing (18th April 2021) conflicts with the hearing date of 18th May 2021 used throughout the judgment and in the dismissal letter.
The respondent's defence pleads the appeal as dated 11th August 2021 while the judgment records the appeal as filed on 13th August 2021.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muthoni v Teachers Service Commission (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E698 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2437 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 29th September 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2437/eng@2025-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.