[2017] KEELRC 1985 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1985 (KLR)

The court found that the respondents had, by November 2016, constituted an investigations committee, made findings, and taken specific action against each claimant, including exoneration and reinstatement of some and disciplinary recommendations for others. The claimants were aware of these actions at the time of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1985 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Wainaina Karanja; Applicant: Veronica Wangu Mbute; Applicant: David Nthama Muthini; Applicant: George Barasa Namasaka; Applicant: Canditarose Athini Musonga; Respondent: The Director General, National Youth Service; Respondent: The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Public Service, Youth and Gender Affairs; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 817, 819 & 939 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications for Reinstatement and Setting Aside of Interdiction
Outcome
applications and claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Interdiction Procedure, Disciplinary Process, Reinstatement, Natural Justice, Fair Administrative Action
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Interdiction Procedure Disciplinary Process Reinstatement Natural Justice Fair Administrative Action

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Wainaina Karanja

Applicant

Veronica Wangu Mbute

Applicant

David Nthama Muthini

Applicant

George Barasa Namasaka

Applicant

Canditarose Athini Musonga

Applicant

The Director General, National Youth Service

Respondent

The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Public Service, Youth and Gender Affairs

Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications for Reinstatement and Setting Aside of Interdiction

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to reinstatement with full pay and benefits pending hearing and determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the interdiction letters issued to the claimants should be declared null and void and any actions emanating from them quashed.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents followed due process and fair administrative action in interdicting the claimants and conducting disciplinary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had, by November 2016, constituted an investigations committee, made findings, and taken specific action against each claimant, including exoneration and reinstatement of some and disciplinary recommendations for others. The claimants were aware of these actions at the time of filing suit. The court held that the employer retains the prerogative to address misconduct within its workforce, provided fair procedure and natural justice are observed. Since the issues of interdiction and reinstatement had already been substantively addressed by the employer, and the disciplinary process was ongoing or concluded, the applications for reinstatement and...

Court Disposition

applications and claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimants' applications and claim are dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.