The Employment and Labour Relations Court sitting in Kisumu on Monday cleared the Commission on Administrative Justice in a dispute filed by a teacher, finding it acted within its mandate.
The court ruled that the CAJ engaged actively with the Teachers Service Commission, but identified procedural defects in the disciplinary panel and awarded Sh200,000 in damages for unlawful actions.
The Commission, which appeared as the 8th respondent in the case of Fred Apima Obita v Teachers Service Commission and seven others, had been accused of failing to investigate complaints raised by the claimant regarding alleged administrative inaction.
However, in its judgment, the court ruled that the allegations against the Ombudsman were unsupported by evidence.
Justice Jacob Gakeri observed that the Commission had written to the Teachers Service Commission no fewer than seven times during its inquiry, seeking clarification, facts and corrective measures.
The court found that the correspondence demonstrated active engagement rather than neglect.
During cross-examination, the claimant admitted that the Commission’s intervention had helped resolve his concerns to some extent, enabling him to access documents and facilitating the eventual disciplinary hearing.
The court noted that his dissatisfaction stemmed from expectations that the CAJ should independently take over the matter, despite other institutions already handling related issues.
The court clarified that the Commission’s role is to ascertain facts, issue recommendations and promote administrative justice, and that it is not mandated to assume the investigative or disciplinary powers of other state organs.
On that basis, the declaration sought against the CAJ for alleged failure to investigate was declined as unmerited, effectively exonerating the Commission from any wrongdoing.
While the Ombudsman was cleared, the court reached different conclusions regarding aspects of the case against the Teachers Service Commission.
The court held that although the employer had authority to discipline the claimant for desertion of duty, there were procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
Specifically, it found that the disciplinary panel convened by the TSC was improperly constituted because it lacked a member of the Commission as chairperson, as required under Regulation 151 of the Code of Regulations for Teachers.
The court ruled that this defect rendered the proceedings and the resulting suspension a nullity in law.
The judgment also addressed the withdrawal of the claimant’s medical cover during the disciplinary period.
The court found that deregistration from the AON Minet Medical Scheme was irregular, unfair and unlawful, noting that the employment relationship was still in place.
It held that the action violated the claimant’s right to human dignity and awarded general damages of Sh200,000 against the Teachers Service Commission. The court further declared that failure to remit NHIF deductions was illegal.
However, most of the claimant’s broader allegations did not succeed.
Claims of defamation related to an alleged arrest at his home were not substantiated with credible evidence.
Allegations of discrimination were found not to have been properly pleaded or particularized.
The court also dismissed assertions of conspiracy, hacking of email accounts and collusion among respondents, stating that serious constitutional and tortious claims must be strictly proved and cannot rest on speculation.
On the issue of salary, the court ruled that no wages were payable during the interdiction period when the claimant was not performing work, in line with established employment principles.
Salary would only become due after the interdiction period ended, unless already settled.
In its final determination, the court described the outcome as nuanced. While the claimant succeeded in challenging the composition of the disciplinary panel and in securing compensation for unlawful withdrawal of medical cover, his extensive claims for special damages and constitutional violations were dismissed for lack of proof.
Most notably, the Commission on Administrative Justice emerged fully vindicated, with the court affirming that it acted diligently and within the confines of its statutory oversight mandate.
