[2009] KEHC 1556 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 1556 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff was not absent from duty as alleged but was working at the Provincial Director of Agriculture's office as instructed by his superiors. The evidence showed that the plaintiff continued to perform his duties and receive allowances, and that the disciplinary process leading to his...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 1556 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Samuel Juma Shifuoko; Defendant: Public Service Commission; Defendant: The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture; Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 2 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Dismissal, Public Service Employment, Retirement Benefits, Disciplinary Procedure
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unlawful Dismissal Public Service Employment Retirement Benefits Disciplinary Procedure

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Juma Shifuoko

Plaintiff

Public Service Commission

Defendant

The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's dismissal from employment was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was absent from duty without lawful authority.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to unpaid salary and retirement benefits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was not absent from duty as alleged but was working at the Provincial Director of Agriculture's office as instructed by his superiors. The evidence showed that the plaintiff continued to perform his duties and receive allowances, and that the disciplinary process leading to his dismissal was tainted by malice and procedural irregularities. The court held that the dismissal was unlawful, as the plaintiff was not given a fair hearing and the recommendations for his dismissal were based on incorrect information. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to unpaid salary for the period he was unlawfully dismissed and to all retirement benefits as if he had...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is entitled to unpaid salary from 12th June, 1998 until 29th March, 2001.
  • The plaintiff is to be paid all retirement benefits as if he had retired normally up to 29th March, 2001.