Rose Lunani Lukorito v Teachers Service Commission
The bottom line
#A teacher fired in 2006 over a certificate fraud claim won her case because the Teachers Service Commission could not prove the certificate wasn't hers.
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 Claim was filed out of time
- 2.If (a) above is in the negative, whether the claimant was wrongfully, unfairly, and unlawfully dismissed
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the cause
Key legal issues
#Limitation - whether the claim was time-barred
Not time-barred; the issue had already been determined by Wasilwa J and the cause reinstated by the Court of Appeal; the fraud-based claim fell outside the three-year limitation
The court noted the issue was determined in a 2014 ruling by Wasilwa J under Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act (fraud/mistake), that Nduma J's 2019 striking-out ruling was made in error, and that the Court of Appeal reinstated the cause in October 2024. The alleged misconduct was founded on alleged fraud, so the three-year limit did not apply.
Whether the dismissal was substantively fair - did the Claimant use another's KJSE certificate
The dismissal was substantively unfair; the Respondent failed to prove the certificate did not belong to the Claimant
The Respondent alleged the KJSE certificate belonged to one Rose Lunani (allegedly a sister-in-law) but adduced no proof: it never contacted the school or examination bodies, made no report to the DCI, and relied only on a post-dismissal chief's letter alleging mere name similarity. The Claimant's explanation (adopting her guardian brother's name) and the school's confirmation letter stood unrebuted.
Whether the disciplinary process was procedurally fair
The process was largely fair until the Respondent failed to determine the Claimant's appeal; cumulatively the procedure was unfair
The Claimant was interdicted, invited to respond in writing, and given a disciplinary hearing with notice and the right to bring witnesses. However, the Respondent never determined her 8th November 2006 appeal against dismissal, a grave and fatal omission violating natural justice. The investigation preceding the process was also found to be bogus and malicious.
Entitlement to reliefs
Declaration of unfair termination, notice pay, service pay, maximum 12 months' compensation under Section 49(1)(c), return of P2 certificate, certificate of service, interest and costs granted; loss of future salary and apology refused
Notice pay was undisputed; service pay was awarded as no evidence showed the Claimant was in a pension scheme; the maximum 12 months' compensation was granted after considering Section 49(4) factors given the egregious unfairness. Loss of ten years' future salary was speculative, and an apology could not be ordered in vain.
Legal principles established
#- A party that alleges must prove the allegation on a balance of probabilities; the employer alleging use of another's certificate bears the burden of proving it
- Fair dismissal requires both substantive and procedural fairness
- Natural justice requires that a subject be allowed to seek review or appeal against an administrative action, and the failure to determine the Claimant's appeal was a grave omission
- Misconduct founded on alleged fraud is not subject to the three-year limitation period under Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act
Court orders
#- 1.A declaratory order that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Respondent was wrongful, unfair, and unlawful
- 2.The Respondent to within 30 days of judgment return and deliver to the Claimant her P2 Certificate No. 06786
- 3.Award of one month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs11,892/=, service pay of Kshs344,868/=, and compensation for unlawful dismissal of Kshs142,704/=, totalling Kshs499,464/=
- 4.The award is subject to statutory deductions but shall attract interest at court rates from the date of dismissal on 5th May 2006 till payment in full
- 5.The Respondent to issue and deliver a certificate of service to the Claimant within 30 days of the judgment
- 6.Costs of the cause to the Claimant
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 Article 162(2) of the Constitution (employment dispute; not expressly quoted in judgment)
Relief refused
#Loss of ten years' salary amounting to Kshs1,427,040/=
Presumptuous; no guarantee the Claimant would have served to retirement; not based on any law the Court could invoke
An apology by the Respondent for shame, humiliation and mental anguish
Defamation not pleaded nor proved; a court does not issue orders in vain; left to the Respondent's conscience
Costs
Costs of the cause to the Claimant (awarded although not pleaded, as the successful party).
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 a cardinal principle of the law of evidence that a party that alleges must prove the allegation as a matter of fact – see Sections 107, 108, & 109 of the Evidence Act.
the alleged investigations that followed were bogus, shambolic, pedestrian, malicious, and incredible for the reasons alluded to above.
It is a cardinal principle of the Rules of natural justice that a subject should always be allowed to seek for a review or appeal against an administrative action.
the court finds and holds that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Respondent was wrongful, unfair, unjust, and unlawful, both in substance and form (procedure).
a) A declaratory order be and hereby issued that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Respondent was wrongful, unfair, and unlawful.
f) Costs of the cause to the Claimant.
Issues in the judgment
#Date of dismissal inconsistently stated as 5th May 2006 and 5th October 2006
Judgment dated 24th September 2026, after submissions dated 27th January 2026 and hearing on 1st October 2025
Interdiction letter describes Claimant's grade as P1 though the dispute concerns a P2 certificate
Orders section numbered 25, inconsistent with paragraph numbering of the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rose Lunani Lukorito v Teachers Service Commission", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. 55 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2584/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.