Martin Luther Bwanga v Anti Counterfeit Authority
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that unsigned HR manuals bind employees and that a disciplinary process based on admitted breaches was lawful.
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 respondent's HR instruments are valid and applicable to the petitioner.
- 2.Whether the respondent violated the Petitioner's Constitutional rights.
- 3.Whether the disciplinary process was justified.
- 4.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought.
Key legal issues
#Validity and applicability of HR instruments not approved by PSC
Instruments approved by SCAC in exercise of delegated PSC authority were valid and applicable; the PSC circular of 6 March 2026 granted a six-month transition period for continued use
The court held the PSC delegated oversight of HR instrument development to SCAC in writing, so SCAC approvals exercised delegated authority (qui facit per alium facit per se). The PSC circular of 6 March 2026 expressly granted interim approval for continued use of existing instruments for six months, meaning the instruments remained operative and enforceable against the petitioner.
Whether unsigned HR manuals bind the employee
Yes - the appointment letter's reference to 'service regulations in force or as may be amended from time to time' incorporated the manuals into the contract by reference
Relying on the Court of Appeal's holding in Heritage Insurance v Onyango, the court found that an employee whose contract contains a general clause requiring obedience of lawful orders in a HR Manual is bound without signing each issuance; the employer's duty is only to bring the manual to the employee's attention, which was done.
Alleged discrimination and bias
No prima facie case of discrimination established; the supporting affidavit lacked details of the alleged witch-hunt, victimisation or bias
Applying section 5(7) of the Employment Act as explained in Nyachae v Kenya Orient, the burden shifts only once a prima facie case is made. The petitioner adduced no sufficient material on ethnicity-based discrimination, and quorum of the HRMAC would subsist even if two conflicted members recused themselves.
Justification of the disciplinary process
The process was justified; charges were breaches of the operative manual, admitted directly or indirectly, so elaborate investigation was unnecessary
The petitioner admitted attending the Embu meeting without approval or facilitation, ignored the chain of command, and copied internal communication to strangers, contrary to clauses of the manual. Since the facts were undisputed and charges admitted, investigation under section 69 of the PSC Act served no purpose; the process was neither discriminatory nor unconstitutional.
Legal principles established
#- HR instruments not approved by the PSC but approved by SCAC under delegated authority remain valid during the PSC's six-month transition period
- An employee whose contract incorporates service regulations by reference is bound by HR manuals without signing each one
- A prima facie case of discrimination must be shown before the burden shifts to the employer under section 5(7) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed for want of merit.
- 2.Parties shall bear their own costs.
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 Constitution over employment and labour relations disputes (petition citing Articles 236, 48, 27 and 234(2)(g))
Relief refused
#Declaration that the HR Policy and Procedures Manual 2021 is null and void for lack of PSC approval
Instruments were approved by SCAC under delegated PSC authority and validated by the PSC's 6-month transition circular
Declaration that the HR Manual does not form part of the contract of service
Contract incorporated service regulations by reference; employee need not sign each manual
Declaration that the disciplinary action violates Article 236
Charges went beyond attending a function and were grounded on breaches of the operative manual
Declaration under Section 69 of the Public Service Commission Act that investigation was mandatory
Facts were undisputed and charges admitted directly or indirectly, rendering elaborate investigation unnecessary
General damages for constitutional violations
No violation established; petition dismissed
Costs
Parties shall bear their own costs.
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.
Flowing from the foregoing, the court finds that the Respondents HR instruments approved by SCAC on 14th April 2021 were not only valid and operational but were in a similar vein applicable to the Petitioner and indeed all other employees of the Respondent.
They all became part of the package and the Petitioner cannot be heard to say that he did not sign for the HR instruments. They became part of the contract of employment by reference.
From the foregoing analysis, it is discernible that the petitioner's case against the respondent is bereft of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting SCAC approval dates within the judgment
Case number inconsistency between header and footer
Access to justice attributed to Article 45 instead of Article 48
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Martin Luther Bwanga v Anti Counterfeit Authority", Case Analysis (2026). Petition No. E093 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2570/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.