Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Owour v Kenya Revenue Authority & 4 others (Petition E232 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2442 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court dismissed an application to suspend a termination letter, holding that the relief sought would amount to interim reinstatement without exceptional circumstances.
Ngeywa v Teachers Service Commission (Constitutional Petition E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2434 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the limitation objection failed because the petitioner had pursued the internal review process and the cause of action accrued when the review decision was communicated on 9 September 2022, not on the earlier dismissal date. However, on the merits, the dispute was fundamentally an employment and disciplinary matter governed by the Employment Act and the Teachers Service Commission regulations, not a standalone constitutional violation. The court found the petitioner was given adequate notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to defend himself, and that he admitted absence wit…
Source excerpt
Mashua v Ntoipo & 4 others (Tribunal Case E544 of 2025) [2026] KECOPT 326 (KLR) (13 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Tribunal held that the Claimant was suspended on allegations for which he was never given notice or an opportunity to respond, and the Respondents filed no evidence to justify the decision. On the uncontroverted record, the suspension violated Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, rendering it unlawful, null and void. The Claimant therefore merited declaratory relief, quashing of the suspension, reinstatement-related relief, injunction, costs, and modest general damages.
Source excerpt
Guracha v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) & another (Civil Appeal E422 of 2024) [2026] KECA 1604 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the appellant did not prove discrimination with required comparator evidence, reinstatement was unavailable and impracticable after more than six years and in light of the strained employment relationship, the six months' compensation was a proper exercise of discretion under section 49 of the Employment Act, and the additional monetary claims were neither properly pleaded nor strictly proved. The Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the ELRC judgment.
Source excerpt
National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Banking Insurance & Finance Union Kenya (Civil Appeal E204 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1549 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The bank failed to prove a valid reason for dismissing the grievant because the cancelled withdrawal transaction was within her duties, the account was not dormant, the appellant’s own disciplinary panel exonerated her, and the cancellation caused no loss; accordingly the dismissal was unfair and the reinstatement order was justified.
Source excerpt
Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals and Allied Workers (KUDHEIHA) v Moi University (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E040 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2354 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that Moi University had a genuine operational reason for the redundancy, but the process was unlawful because the notice failed to disclose the extent of the redundancy and was not shown to have been served on the labour officer, consultations were incomplete, the selection criteria used by PKF did not comply with section 40(1)(c), and redundancy dues were not proved as paid before release. Reinstatement was declined as impracticable, and compensation was limited to two months' gross salary per affected employee together with outstanding statutory and contractual redundancy due…
Source excerpt
Nyamolo v One Acre Fund (Cause E021 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2318 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Respondent failed to prove a genuine and reasonable basis for the fraud allegation because the Claimant gave a detailed explanation, no audit or supporting evidence of theft was produced, and the investigation material was incomplete and unsigned. Procedurally, the dismissal was unfair because the Claimant requested the investigation report and supporting evidence before the hearing but was not supplied with them, denying her a meaningful defence. The Court therefore held the dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair and unlawful, but declined reinstatement because the fixed-ter…
Source excerpt
Wambugu v National Police Service & 3 others (Petition 105 of 2016) [2026] KEELRC 2224 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The petition failed because the challenged retirement decision was made in January 2005, the petitioner waited until 2016 to sue, certiorari was time-barred, reinstatement was unavailable after the prolonged lapse of time, the petitioner had accepted retirement dues and pension, and the 3rd respondent could not be held liable for events predating its existence. The court found no sustainable basis for the constitutional and compensation claims.
Source excerpt
Kaunda v Unga Ltd (Petition E182 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2225 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the respondent established a genuine and lawful basis for the disciplinary action and summary dismissal, namely the petitioner’s receipt of Ksh. 560,144 from suppliers/transporters in breach of the applicable employment contract, Code of Conduct, and HR Policy. The court further held that the respondent accessed the relevant financial data through a lawful process supported by a police report and a court order, so no violation of privacy or data protection rights was proved. Because the petitioner was issued with a notice to show cause, invited to and attended a disciplina…
Source excerpt
Tarus v Public Service Commission & another (Cause E063 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2220 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court assumed jurisdiction under the Public Service Commission Act read together with the 2025 Disciplinary Appeals Procedures Regulations, but found no basis to interfere with the Commission’s decision because the dismissal had a valid substantive ground involving negligent and destructive conduct in forest management, while the procedural defect only rendered the termination unfair on procedure and did not justify reinstatement; the Commission’s compensation award was therefore fair and proportionate.
Source excerpt
Explore more
