Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedPetition dated 2nd February 2025 (ELRC, Nairobi)· [2025] KEELRC 2914 (KLR)

Kamunyu v Ndegwa & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E013 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2914 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 October 2025
7,017 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~28 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled Safaricom's rushed disciplinary process unfair and awarded the employee Sh5 million in damages.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, formerly Chief Channels Officer of the 3rd Respondent (Safaricom PLC), petitioned the Court claiming that his suspension by letters dated 17th and 19th January 2025 violated Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution. He alleged the suspension breached the employer's Disciplinary Policy, was issued by the wrong officer, came within 24 hours of a court ruling suspending disciplinary proceedings in ELRC JR No. E066 of 2024, denied him a hearing, locked him out of systems and documents, and was retaliatory. The Respondents countered that the suspension was a precautionary, non-punitive measure to facilitate investigations into the abandonment of the EDMS contract with Baran Telecom Networks involving a loss of approximately USD 2.2 million; that the petition was moot after the Petitioner's summary dismissal on 28th March 2025, res judicata, an abuse of process, and failed the Anarita Karimi threshold. The court rejected the res judicata objection, holding the judicial review matter had become moot. On the merits, it found the disciplinary process flawed: no witnesses were called or cross-examined, the Petitioner had only 24 hours to respond with no access to documents, breaching Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, Section 41 of the Employment Act and Articles 41, 47 and 50. The court awarded constitutional damages of Kshs 5 million but declined to declare the suspension null and void as overtaken by the dismissal. Costs with interest were awarded to the Petitioner.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suspension and disciplinary process violated Articles 41, 47 and 50

Holding

Yes - the process breached fair labour practices, fair administrative action and fair hearing

Reasoning

The court found the Petitioner was given only 24 hours to respond, had his systems locked and was denied access to documents, and that no witnesses were called before the disciplinary committee nor could he cross-examine accusers. These lapses breached Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, Section 41 of the Employment Act and the employer's own disciplinary policy, violating Articles 41, 47 and 50.

p. 13
02

Whether the petition was res judicata / sub judice ELRC JR No. E066 of 2024

Holding

No - the judicial review matter became moot when the disciplinary process was overtaken by events

Reasoning

The Respondents argued the petition duplicated reliefs sought in ELRC JR No. E066 of 2024 and was an abuse of process. The court held the JR matter was moot after the Petitioner's dismissal and therefore the res judicata/sub judice objections failed.

p. 11
03

Whether the declaration of nullity of suspension should issue

Holding

Refused as overtaken by events

Reasoning

Although breaches were found, the Petitioner had since been summarily dismissed on 28th March 2025, so an order declaring the suspension null and void would serve no purpose. The court instead awarded constitutional damages of Kshs 5 million and costs.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • A fair disciplinary hearing requires that witnesses be called and the accused be given a chance to cross-examine them; failure renders the hearing flawed
  • 24 hours is inadequate time to prepare a defence to disciplinary allegations, negating procedural fairness

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Damages of Kshs 5 million awarded to the Petitioner for breach of his constitutional rights
  2. 2.Respondents to pay costs of the petition plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kamunyu v Ndegwa & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E013 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2914 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 2nd February 2025 (ELRC, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2914/eng@2025-10-22

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.