The Employment and Labour Relations Court has upheld the dismissal of a secondary school teacher accused of sexually harassing a female student by kissing and hugging her.
In a ruling that established important precedents regarding educator accountability and student protection protocols within Kenya's education system, the court ruled that the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) adhered to due process and had sufficient grounds for termination.
The court dismissed a petition by a former teacher at Muthurwa Girls Secondary School, identified by the initials NP, who challenged his removal from service and deregistration as unconstitutional and unfair.
NP argued that his accusers did not testify against him during disciplinary proceedings and that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
He sought a declaration that the TSC violated his right to fair administrative action, along with reinstatement and damages.
However, the court ruled that the evidence against him was credible and that proper procedures were followed.
"The evidence adduced pointed to the guilt of the petitioner on the charges leveled against him," the court stated. "There were valid reasons to warrant dismissal, and due process was followed."
Court
Photo credit: POOL| Nation Media Group
The judge dismissed claims of unfair termination as "non-existent," affirming that Mr NP was "fairly and justly dismissed."
The case stemmed from September 2023 allegations that NP called a Form Four student from her classroom during a blackout and kissed her on a school staircase.
Witnesses further accused him of forcibly hugging her, touching her breasts without consent, and inappropriate physical contact during a classroom reading session.
During disciplinary hearings before the school’s Board of Management (BOM) in October 2023, NP faced charges of maintaining an illicit relationship with the student—a violation of TSC policy—and breaching school rules by giving her his mobile phone.
Video evidence presented showed him embracing and kissing the student, holding her tightly by the waist, and touching her breast, despite the dim lighting.
The court noted that the TSC initiated disciplinary action per the Code of Regulations for Teachers, issuing NP a show-cause letter before summoning him before the BOM.
The student and other witnesses testified in his presence, and he was permitted to cross-examine them.
"The victim testified against him, and he exercised his right to challenge her account," the court observed, rejecting claims of hearsay or procedural unfairness.
After the BOM’s findings, NP was interdicted and later appeared before a TSC disciplinary committee, where the student reiterated her allegations.
Fellow students corroborated her testimony, stating they witnessed Mr NP with her and heard disturbances near the staircase.
The court found testimonies consistent across both hearings, with NP present and afforded cross-examination rights at each stage.
In his petition, NP alleged the accusations were fabricated, delayed, and lacked medical or physical evidence.
He also accused the TSC of altering his interdiction letter and violating his constitutional rights to dignity and fair labor practices. The court dismissed these arguments, clarifying that disciplinary proceedings require only proof of misconduct, not criminal trial standards.
"The TSC reasonably concluded misconduct occurred based on witness accounts," the judge ruled. "No constitutional rights were breached, as the process was fair and justified."
The TSC defended its actions as necessary to safeguard learners and uphold teaching standards, citing Kenya’s constitutional protections against sexual abuse in schools.
The court concurred, emphasizing that allegations endangering students’ welfare demand serious scrutiny. She declined reinstatement or compensation, stating it would contravene public interest to reinstate a teacher dismissed for sexual misconduct.
The court noted that during the board hearing, the teacher was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses.
“The victim, among others, testified against him and he was given an opportunity to cross-examine them,” the judge said.
Following the board’s findings, the teacher was interdicted and later summoned to a full disciplinary hearing before the TSC. At that hearing, the learner again testified and maintained her account. Other students corroborated her testimony, telling the panel they saw the teacher with the learner and heard a commotion at the staircase.
The court observed that the testimonies remained consistent throughout the process. “The victim testified both before the BOM and the TSC disciplinary committee,” Justice Hellen Wasilwa said, noting that the teacher was present and cross-examined witnesses at both stages.
In his petition, NP argued that the allegations were fabricated, delayed, and unsupported by medical or physical evidence. He also claimed that the TSC altered the interdiction letter and violated his constitutional rights to fair administrative action, dignity, and fair labour practices.
The court rejected these arguments, holding that disciplinary proceedings are not criminal trials and need only meet the standard of proof.
It found that the TSC genuinely believed the misconduct occurred, based on witness accounts and the learner’s testimony, which the teacher failed to discredit.
NP, employed in 2019 as a secondary school teacher II, lost his petition entirely, with costs borne by both parties. The judgment reaffirms the TSC’s authority to discipline educators accused of misconduct or violating the Code of Regulations for Teachers, provided due process is observed.
