Okello v Judicial Service Commission (Cause E807 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2513 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a judiciary accountant was rightly fired for financial lapses, but his suspension and appeal process were flawed, earning him compensation.
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 Claimant's suspension was lawful
- 2.Whether the Respondent followed due process in terminating the Claimant's contract of service (procedural fairness)
- 3.Whether there were valid and fair reasons for terminating the Claimant's employment
- 4.What reliefs the Claimant is entitled to
Key legal issues
#Lawfulness of the suspension
The suspension was unlawful because it was made and communicated by an unauthorised officer.
Regulation 15 of the Third Schedule to the Judicial Service Act delegates the power of interdiction and suspension to the Honourable Chief Justice, and Regulation 17 reserves suspension to the Chief Justice in defined circumstances. Section D.7.5.2 of the Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual likewise reserves the power to the Chief Justice. The suspension was not under the hand of the Chief Justice, and the Respondent produced no decision or resolution authorising it. The two authorities the Respondent relied on were declined.
Procedural fairness in termination
The dismissal process was procedurally unfair, chiefly because the Claimant's appeal was not heard and determined.
A show-cause notice was issued, the Claimant responded, and he was granted an oral hearing before a Sub-Committee of the Human Resource Management Advisory Committee with the right to be accompanied and bring witnesses. However, s 45(5)(a) of the Employment Act requires the Court to assess how the employer handled any appeal. Despite asserting the appeal was determined, the Respondent produced no evidence of that, and its own witness admitted the appeal had not been determined.
Valid and fair reasons for dismissal
The Respondent proved valid and fair reasons for the termination.
The audit report showed failure to surrender revenue of Kshs 6,938,467/-, under-banking of Kshs 10,305,963/- and Kshs 1,741,144/-, failure to account for deposits of Kshs 5,000,000/-, and unaccounted receipt books. As Accountant-In-Charge, the Claimant supervised cashiers, prepared daily revenue and banking reports and had a duty to verify revenue documents. That he was not the actual receiver of the revenue or that actual loss was not individually proved did not matter, as he failed to perform his specified control roles.
Reinstatement
Reinstatement was refused.
Reinstatement is an exceptional remedy requiring demonstration of exceptional circumstances. None were shown, and three years had elapsed since termination, making reinstatement inappropriate.
Compensation for unfair process
Three months' gross salary (Kshs 312,900/-) was awarded as compensation.
Although valid and fair reasons were proved, aspects of procedural fairness were not followed, notably the unprocessed appeal. Considering these factors, the Court found the equivalent of three months' gross salary appropriate, the monthly gross salary being Kshs 104,300/-.
Legal principles established
#- The power to suspend judicial staff under the Judicial Service Act is reserved to the Honourable Chief Justice, and a suspension made or communicated by an unauthorised officer is unlawful
- An employer's failure to hear and determine an employee's appeal renders the dismissal inequitable under s 45(5)(a) of the Employment Act
- An employer must prove valid and fair reasons for dismissal under ss 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the Respondent proved valid and fair reasons to terminate the Claimant's contract, but the process was not fair
- 2.Award of compensation equivalent to 3 months' gross salary of Kshs 312,900/-
- 3.Payment of full salaries accrued during the suspension
- 4.Interest on the award at court rates from the date of judgment
- 5.Costs to the Claimant on a half-scale
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (referring to s 43, 45 and s 45(5)(a))
Relief refused
#Reinstatement
No exceptional circumstances demonstrated and 3 years had elapsed since termination
Lost income to retirement
No evidential, contractual or legal basis laid; such compensation is speculative in law
Loss of earnings for the dismissal head
The special damages were not pleaded with particularity; only accrued salaries during the unlawful suspension were awarded
Costs
The Claimant has partly succeeded. He is granted costs on a half-scale.
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 Court finds that the suspension of the Claimant was made and communicated by an unauthorised oficer and thus unlawful.
Under both the Third Schedule and the Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual, the power to suspend is reserved to the Honourable Chief Justice on delegation.
The Court finds the Respondent’s handling of the Claimant’s appeal rendered the dismissal inequitable.
It, therefore, does not matter that the Claimant was not the actual receiver of the revenue or that there were weaknesses in the system, or that the actual loss was not proved. No such weaknesses were established in Court.
The contention that an employee whose contract of employment is terminated prematurely or illegally should be compensated for the remainder of the years or period when they would have retired is unattainable in law.
The Court finds and declares that the Respondent proved valid and fair reasons to terminate the Claimant's contract, but the process was not fair.
The Claimant is awarded: (i) Compensation Kshs 312,900/- (ii) Full salaries during suspension
Issues in the judgment
#The claim/cause number and neutral citation are not stated in the judgment as provided.
The judgment alleges violation of constitutional rights in the pleadings but no constitutional provisions or analysis of constitutional violations appear in the determination.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okello v Judicial Service Commission (Cause E807 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2513 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2513/eng@2025-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.