Impartiality as a Component of Procedural Fairness: The Case of Mabonga v Agricultural Finance Corporation [2025] KEELRC 2851 (KLR)

Case Commentary: Mabonga v Agricultural Finance Corporation [2025] KEELRC 2851 (KLR)

1. Introduction

The decision in Mabonga v Agricultural Finance Corporation adds important judicial clarity to the doctrine of procedural fairness within Kenyan employment law. The court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings must not only be substantively justified but must also meet the threshold of impartiality and fairness as required under the Employment Act, 2007.

2. Factual Background

The claimant, an employee of the Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC), was dismissed on allegations of negligence and misconduct. During the internal process, it emerged that one of the panel members who sat in the disciplinary hearing had earlier been directly involved in the investigations—specifically, by extracting data from the claimant’s computer and compiling evidence against him.

Despite the presence of substantive grounds for dismissal, the claimant challenged the fairness of the process, asserting that the participation of an investigator in the disciplinary panel compromised the neutrality of the hearing.

3. The Court’s Holding

The Employment and Labour Relations Court held that the disciplinary process was procedurally tainted. The court reasoned that an individual who investigates alleged misconduct cannot simultaneously sit in judgment over the same matter. This dual role erodes the impartiality required in disciplinary proceedings and undermines the employee’s right to a fair hearing under Section 41 of the Employment Act and Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.

Although the court accepted that the employer had valid and justifiable reasons for terminating the claimant, it concluded that the process was procedurally unfair due to the conflict of interest arising from the panel’s composition.

4. Legal Analysis

(a) Impartiality as a Component of Procedural Fairness

The ruling underscores that fair hearing principles in employment law extend beyond merely giving an employee an opportunity to respond. They also encompass the neutrality of the decision-maker. The presence of an investigator on the disciplinary panel introduces bias—or at least the perception of it—which is enough to vitiate the fairness of the process.

This principle echoes the natural justice maxim nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause). The court’s reasoning aligns with both administrative law standards and labour jurisprudence, which emphasize that impartiality is not optional but intrinsic to due process.

(b) Substantive vs. Procedural Fairness

The decision draws a clear line between substantive justification (valid reasons for dismissal under Section 43) and procedural propriety (fair process under Section 41). Even when the employer can demonstrate genuine misconduct or negligence, failure to ensure an impartial process renders the termination unfair under Section 45(2).

This approach maintains consistency with precedents such as Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission [2013] eKLR and Loice Otieno v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd [2013] eKLR, where courts held that a fair process is an independent requirement from the validity of reasons.

(c) Institutional Implications for Employers

Employers are reminded that disciplinary architecture must reflect the principle of separation of roles:

• Investigators gather facts and evidence.
• Disciplinary panels assess evidence and determine culpability.
• Appeal panels, if any, provide independent review.

Mixing these roles compromises procedural integrity and exposes the employer to liability even where the underlying misconduct is proven.

5. Broader Implications

This ruling reinforces the trajectory of Kenyan labour jurisprudence toward strengthening procedural safeguards in the workplace. It also serves as a caution to HR departments and disciplinary committees to adhere to the rule against bias and to document distinct stages of investigation and adjudication.

Moreover, the judgment resonates with comparative principles found in international labour standards, particularly ILO Convention No. 158 (Article 7), which stresses the right to a fair and impartial hearing before termination.

6. Conclusion

Mabonga v Agricultural Finance Corporation is a timely reaffirmation that justice in employment relations must not only be done but be seen to be done. Even where misconduct is substantiated, a flawed procedure—especially one tainted by bias—renders a termination legally untenable.

The case stands as a strong precedent for ensuring impartiality, transparency, and procedural fairness in disciplinary processes across both public and private sector employment in Kenya.

 

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.