Board of Management Sipala Friends Boys High School v Dobister Nanjala
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that an employee suspended pending a disciplinary hearing must wait for that process to finish before suing for salary or dismissal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.What was the nature of the employment of the Respondent with the Appellant and what were the basic terms thereof?
- 2.Is the Respondent still an employee of the Appellant?
- 3.Did the trial court arrive at the right decision and awards?
- 4.What orders should this court issue?
- 5.Costs
Key legal issues
#Nature of the Respondent's employment and her basic terms
The Respondent was engaged as a grounds lady attached to the store, not as a storekeeper, and her last gross salary was Kshs11,244 as per the payroll
The appointment letter of 1st January 1997 described her as 'Grounds Lady Deployed to the store'. Absent any letter changing her status, she remained a grounds lady. The payroll produced by the Appellant showed a gross salary of Kshs11,244 at suspension, unrebutted by the Respondent.
Whether the Respondent was constructively dismissed or remains an employee
She was not dismissed; she remains an employee pending completion of the disciplinary process, and her suit was premature and an abuse of process
The Respondent was suspended on 14th February 2024 and invited to a disciplinary hearing on 8th July 2024. She filed suit after only four months of suspension, preempting the imminent disciplinary process. The trial court should have stayed or struck out the cause. The disciplinary process can still be jumpstarted.
Whether the trial court's awards of salary and leave allowance arrears were correct
The awards were wrong, being premised on the misapprehension that the Respondent was no longer an employee and on a storekeeper's wage rather than her actual salary
The trial court awarded salary arrears based on the regulated storekeeper wage, yet the Respondent was a grounds lady earning Kshs11,244 gross. The awards rested on the mistaken premise of constructive dismissal; the entire judgment was therefore set aside and the cause dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- An employee on suspension pending a disciplinary process remains an employee, and filing suit before the disciplinary process concludes is premature and an abuse of court process
- A suspension of about four months before a disciplinary hearing is not inordinate or unreasonable so as to found constructive dismissal
Court orders
#- 1.Declared that the claim by the Respondent in the lower trial court was filed prematurely and in abuse of the court process
- 2.Set aside the judgment of the lower trial court and the decree therein in their entirety and substituted with an order dismissing the cause
- 3.Ordered the Appellant to jumpstart and conclude the disciplinary process against the Respondent as soon as practically possible in accordance with the law
- 4.Granted any aggrieved party liberty to approach a court for appropriate remedy upon conclusion of the disciplinary process
- 5.Each party to meet own costs in the lower trial court and in this appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Webuye Principal Magistrates' Court (ELRC No. E026 of 2024)
- ELRC No. E026 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Webuye Principal Magistrates' Court ELRC cause (Employment and Labour Relations Court at Bungoma, Appeal No. E006 of 2025)
Relief refused
#Respondent's claim for salary arrears of Kshs240,682 and leave allowance of Kshs182,510 as awarded by the trial court
The cause was filed prematurely and in abuse of court process before the disciplinary process was concluded; the entire judgment was set aside and the cause dismissed
Costs
Each party shall meet own costs in the lower trial 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.
The court finds and holds that in absence of any other letter changing the status of the Respondent's engagement, she remained a grounds lady throughout her engagement until the suspension vide a letter dated 14th February 2024.
The Court thus finds and holds that technically the Respondent remains an employee of the Appellant pending the completion of the disciplinary process that commenced with the suspension of the Respondent from work.
The action in the lower court was thus premature and uncalled for and in abuse of the court process.
(ii) The judgment of the lower trial court and the decree therein are hereby set aside in their entirety and substituted with an order dismissing the cause.
(v) Each party shall meet own costs in the lower trial court and in this appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment delivery date (24th September 2026) postdates submissions dated 4th December 2025 but the year appears anomalous
Length of service misstated: 1997 to 2024 described as 'over 17 yrs'
Respondent's gender referred to inconsistently in submissions summary
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Board of Management Sipala Friends Boys High School v Dobister Nanjala", Case Analysis (2026). Appeal No. E006 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2568/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.