Суд Кении подтвердил увольнение учителя, не оформившего отпуск по семейным обстоятельствам

A court has upheld a decision by the Teachers Service Commission (TSC), highlighting how even a genuine family emergency can have serious career consequences when employees fail to follow their employer’s human resources policies and leave procedures. On a February evening in 2020, Cleophas Ngeywa, a veteran teacher, received a distress phone call that ended in court fighting to keep his job. A family member told him his father was seriously ill and had been admitted to Kitale County Hospital for surgery. Mr Ngeywa, then teaching at Jamhuri High School in Nairobi, travelled to Kitale to support his father. He told the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Machakos that, while in the hospital at night, he called Heads of Department and Heads of Languages and arranged for colleagues to cover his classes. He also said he sent a text message to the school principal, explaining his father’s illness and the arrangements made for his students. According to court papers, his colleagues attended his classes on his behalf and remained in constant communication with him to update him on progress. They also filled the class attendance forms and books as mandated by the school. His father was discharged on March 13, 2020, and Mr Ngeywa returned to Nairobi that day. He reported to school the following day, marked Continuous Assessment Test (CAT) scripts and later entered students’ marks. He attended the school closing assembly on March 16 as schools closed because of the Covid-19 pandemic. But the 15-day absence became a disciplinary case that eventually ended Mr Ngeywa’s 25-year career with the TSC. Mr Ngeywa said the circumstances surrounding his father’s illness explained the absence and that he resumed his duties, but TSC said he had deserted duty without permission and had not obtained compassionate leave required under the teachers’ regulations. He was summoned before the school’s Board of Management on September 3, 2020, following investigations, and was later interdicted. TSC said he was informed that he could defend himself before the Commission, present evidence and submit a written response within 21 days. The disciplinary panel found that Mr Ngeywa had pleaded guilty to the absence, attributed it to his father’s illness, but had not sought written permission or compassionate leave. However, the principal disputed Mr Ngeywa’s claim of having sent a text message. He was dismissed. Mr Ngeywa appealed, and a Review Committee heard him on August 31, 2022. The committee upheld the dismissal. Mr Ngeywa challenged the process at the Employment and Labour Relations Court in November 2023, seeking reinstatement, salary and other benefits amounting to Sh1.3 million. He argued that his rights to fair administrative action and a fair hearing had been breached. He complained that he had received only 10 days to prepare for the disciplinary hearing, although he said the applicable regulation required one month’s notice. He also said he was not properly informed of his right to have a colleague or shop-floor representative present. However, Justice Jemimah Keli found that Mr Ngeywa had been given time to prepare, attended the hearing and presented his case. “The court, on perusal of the pleadings, finds that the process met the threshold of fair hearing under the cited provision of Article 50 in that the petitioner was granted time to prepare for hearing. Ten days is sufficient time,” Justice Keli said in the judgment delivered on August 20, 2026. The court found that Mr Ngeywa had admitted being away without permission and had failed to apply for compassionate leave. “He did not produce evidence of alleged communication with the School Principal,” the court stated. The court concluded that there was “substantial fairness” because the reason for termination had been proved and there was evidence of a fair hearing. “The petitioner was heard and minutes produced. The petitioner did not state he was denied the opportunity to call witnesses or cross-examine witnesses,” the court said, dismissing the Constitutional petition. The court found no proof of violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights. The court held that the grievances belonged within employment law rather than a constitutional petition. It held that Mr Ngeywa’s complaints concerned the fairness and legality of his employment disciplinary process, matters capable of being addressed through an ordinary employment claim, rather than through a constitutional petition alleging violation of fundamental rights. It dismissed the petition and concluded that the dispute did not require a Constitutional interpretation or application. Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.