Michael Mwangi Gachara v Kenyatta University
The bottom line
#Kenyatta University acted unlawfully by stripping a lecturer of his directorship without reasons or a hearing, but he won only Kshs. 100,000 because he proved no financial loss.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Petition meets the threshold of Constitutional Petitions
- 2.Whether the Respondent is bound by the provisions of Mwongozo
- 3.Whether revocation of the Petitioner's directorship amounts to unfair and unlawful infringement of his rights
- 4.Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the Petition met the constitutional petition threshold
The Petition satisfied Rule 10 of the Mutunga Rules and the substantive Anarita Karimi Njeru/Trusted Society test; the Respondent was able to answer it precisely.
Rule 10 of the Mutunga Rules prescribes disclosure requirements for petitions. The Court of Appeal in Trusted Society reformulated the Anarita Karimi Njeru precision requirement as a substantive test: whether the complaint gives proper notice of the claims so the respondent can prepare its case. Here the Respondent answered the Petition precisely, so no formal defect arose.
Whether the Respondent is bound by the Mwongozo Code
Yes - Kenyatta University is a state corporation bound by Mwongozo despite its Charter.
Under section 2 of the State Corporations Act a chartered university qualifies as a state corporation; Mwongozo was promulgated under sections 7 and 30 of that Act and carries statutory underpinning. In Republic v Communications Authority (ICTAK) the court held no internal policy can supersede Mwongozo. The Charter argument was therefore unsustainable.
Whether revocation of the directorship infringed the Petitioner's rights
Yes - the revocation without reason or hearing infringed Articles 41 and 47 and violated legitimate expectation.
Statute XXII limits revocation to gross misconduct, incompetence or any other good reason. The Respondent conceded no fault and tendered no explanation for the change, and no hearing was afforded. Applying section 45 of the Employment Act and fair-procedure principles, removal of additional responsibilities carrying income without justification breached fair labour practices and fair administrative action.
Whether the Petitioner suffered loss of emoluments
No - interim orders preserved his office and emoluments, so no compensable loss was proved.
The status quo order of 23 December 2025 and the handover-stopping order of 7 January 2026 kept the Petitioner in office earning full allowances until the fixed term lapsed on 31 July 2026. Loss of allowance is special damage requiring specific pleading and proof, which was absent, and no evidence of the other two appointments' subsistence was adduced.
Legal principles established
#- Stripping an employee of rank or position without proper justification breaches labour rights under Article 41 and the right to fair administrative action
- A university is bound by the Mwongozo Code notwithstanding its Charter
- A fixed-term directorship may be revoked only on the grounds in Statute XXII - gross misconduct, incompetence or any other good reason - after affording a hearing
Court orders
#- 1.An award of Kshs. 100,000.00 to the Petitioner with costs at ½ scale
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution - enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms under the Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction
Relief refused
#Conservatory orders staying the revocation of the directorship appointment
Overtaken by effluxion of the fixed-term contract; no subsisting term to stay
Compensation for loss of emoluments from the three directorship appointments
Court orders of 23 December 2025 and 7 January 2026 preserved the office and emoluments; no loss proved; special damages not specifically pleaded and proved
General damages of Kshs. 7,000,000/-
Only a modest award of Kshs. 100,000.00 was found appropriate
Declaration that the Respondent is obliged to apply the Mwongozo Code
Mwongozo held binding in principle, but no such declaration granted as a distinct order
Costs
Costs of the Petition awarded to the Petitioner at ½ 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.
In the circumstances the court is satisfied that an award of Kshs.100,000.00 is fair with costs at ½ scale.
purporting to strip off an employee's rank or position without proper justification, constitutes a breach of their labour rights under article 41 of the Constitution
In sum, the Respondent's contention that it is only bound by the Charter and not the Mwongozo is unsustainable.
The court is in agreement with the Petitioner's argument that he legitimately expected to complete his term. Unless removed for just cause.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states Further Affidavit sworn 16th July 2026 yet contract lapsing 31st July 2026 is discussed; chronology compressed
Sub judice objection on ELRC Petition No. E253 of 2025 is fully argued but never expressly determined in the Analysis section
Mootness argument on prayers (a), (b) and (bb) referenced as if made, though reliefs were lettered (i)-(viii); lettering inconsistency
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Michael Mwangi Gachara v Kenyatta University", Case Analysis (2026). Constitutional Petition No. E264 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2466/eng@2026-09-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.