Background and Facts
The employer, the Traditional Medical Practitioners Council, suspended Joyce
Guhwa from her position as Registrar on 25 February 2022, citing allegations
of misconduct, including failure to maintain proper financial records and poor
performance. However, the disciplinary hearing delayed until September
2022, with delays attributed to the employee’s lack of cooperation with an
audit team.
During the disciplinary hearing proceedings, the employee raised procedural
objections, contending that the employer had violated the provisions of section
6(2) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations,
Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 by failing to investigate and conduct the
disciplinary hearing within 14 working days from the date of her suspension.
Following the hearing, the Disciplinary Tribunal found the employee guilty of
misconduct and dismissed her from employment. Dissatisfied with the
decision, she challenged her dismissal in the Labour Court, which ruled in her
favour, upholding her application for review and reinstating her without any
loss of salary or benefits. Aggrieved with the Labour Court’s decision, the
employer subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
The key issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether the delay in
conducting the disciplinary hearing beyond the 14-working day statutory
period, as stipulated in section 6(2) of the Labour National Employment Code
of Conduct, Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 rendered the proceedings null
and void.
Court’s Findings
(i) Failure to Adhere to Timeframe
Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 mandates that an employer must conduct an
investigation and hearing within 14 working days from suspension. In this
case, the appellant failed to meet this requirement, and the hearing was
delayed by more than eight months, violating the prescribed timeframe.
(ii) Effect of the Delay
The court held that non-compliance with the 14-day period, being peremptory,
resulted in a nullity of the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary authority
lost jurisdiction once the 14-day period expired, and thus, the proceedings
were invalid
(iii) Authority of Suspension
Although, the appellant argued that the suspension was valid, it was noted
that the suspension letter was erroneously dated 25 February 2021 instead of
2022. However, the court held that the suspension letter was not issued by an
authorized person, as the Board chairperson, Dr. Gurure, was not in the
relevant position at the time.
Ruling and Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s case, affirming the Labour
Court’s decision. The failure to conduct the disciplinary hearing within the
prescribed 14-day period rendered the entire process invalid. Consequently,
the respondent’s dismissal was set aside, and she was reinstated to her
former position with full salary and benefits.
Legal Principle
This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines,
particularly the 14-day period for conducting an investigation and disciplinary
hearing proceedings. The judgment further reiterates that procedural non-
compliance with mandatory timelines can lead to the nullification of
disciplinary proceedings. Thus, strict adherence to timelines is a peremptory
requirement to ensure procedural fairness.
Importance of the case
This case highlights the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in
disciplinary proceedings, as non-compliance can lead to the nullification of
decisions and potential reinstatement of employees.
