Teachers Service Commission v Muchanga (Appeal E014 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2617 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a teacher cleared in a criminal case could still be fairly dismissed by the Teachers Service Commission, setting aside all awards.
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 dismissal of the respondent by the appellant was fair and just.
- 2.Whether the lower trial court arrived at the right and proper verdict and made the right lawful orders in the impugned judgment.
- 3.Is there a reason(s) for this court to interfere with the decision of the lower trial court as prayed by the appellant?
- 4.What appropriate orders should this court make in regard to the above issues and on costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair notwithstanding the acquittal in the criminal trial
The dismissal was fair and just both in substance and procedure; the acquittal did not bar disciplinary action on the same facts
The court distinguished the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) from the civil standard applicable in disciplinary proceedings. Under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, a criminal acquittal is relevant only as evidence of its existence, not binding on the outcome of a civil trial. Given the serious allegations of sexual assault on a pupil, the employer was obliged to investigate and act, and the disciplinary hearing accorded the respondent a fair hearing where he could cross-examine witnesses and present his defence.
Whether reinstatement was an available remedy
Reinstatement was unavailable because three years had expired between dismissal and judgment
Section 12(3)(vii) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act limits reinstatement orders to within three years of dismissal. The respondent was dismissed on 9th May 2019 with effect from 27th March 2019, but the lower court's judgment was delivered on 25th August 2023, well outside the statutory window. The lower court's reinstatement order was therefore unlawful, as was awarding both main damages and an alternative reinstatement prayer.
Whether the monetary awards by the lower court were lawful
All monetary awards were set aside; general damages lie only as statutory compensation under Section 49(1)(c), and no notice pay, leave allowance, gratuity or salary arrears were due
Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act provides for compensation, not general damages, and since the dismissal was fair no compensation was payable. Notice pay is inapplicable to dismissal for gross misconduct. Regulation 181(2) of the Code of Regulation for Teachers provides that a dismissed teacher forfeits pension and gratuity claims. The leave allowance, salary arrears and house allowance awards lacked evidential support and were consequently set aside.
Legal principles established
#- An acquittal in criminal charges is not an insulation against disciplinary action by an employer, the standards of proof in criminal and civil proceedings being different
- Reinstatement is not available as a remedy after expiry of three years from the date of dismissal or termination
- A court should not award both a main prayer and an alternative prayer without cogent reasons
Court orders
#- 1.This appeal is hereby allowed and the judgment of the lower court set aside in its entity.
- 2.Each party shall meet own costs both in the lower court and in this appeal.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Bungoma
- Employment & Labour Relations Cause No. 26 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction of the ELRC over the Chief Magistrate's Court Employment and Labour Relations Cause (Order 42 Civil Procedure Rules invoked on appeal)
Relief refused
#Appellant's prayer that the lower court cause be dismissed with costs to the appellant
Appeal allowed but no costs awarded to the appellant; each party to bear own costs
Respondent's reinstatement and salary arrears
Reinstatement unavailable after expiry of three years from dismissal and dismissal held fair and just
Costs
Each party shall meet own costs both in the lower court and in this appeal.
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 important to state upfront that an acquittal in criminal charges is not an insulation against disciplinary action.
The court is of the considered view that the respondent was accorded fair hearing both in substance and procedure.
By the time the lower trial court delivered its judgment on 25th August 2023 the statutory period of three years had long expired and clearly reinstatement was not available to him as a remedy.
This appeal is hereby allowed and the judgment of the lower court set aside in its entity.
Each party shall meet own costs both in the lower court and in this appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The case title and respondent's name are not expressly stated in the judgment; the parties are referred to only as appellant and respondent.
Inconsistent statement of the dismissal date: grounds recite dismissal 'with effect from 27th March 2019' but the letter of dismissal is dated 9th May 2019.
Final order contains a typographical error ('in its entity' for 'in its entirety').
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Teachers Service Commission v Muchanga (Appeal E014 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2617 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Appeal (Bungoma) — appeal against Bungoma CMCC Employment & Labour Relations Cause No. 26 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2617/eng@2025-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.