Impartiality Matters: A Key Lesson from Mabonga v Agricultural Finance Corporation

Introduction

In the recent decision of Mabonga v Agricultural Finance Corporation [2025] KEELRC 2851 (KLR), the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) delivered a reminder that fairness in disciplinary hearings is not just about valid reasons for dismissal — it is equally about how the process is conducted.

The Facts in Brief

• The claimant (an employee of Agricultural Finance Corporation (“AFC”)) was dismissed for alleged negligence and misconduct.
• During the investigation, one member of the disciplinary panel had already participated in the investigation — for example, by extracting data from the employee’s computer.
• That same person then sat on the disciplinary hearing panel and questioned the employee.
• Although the employer had substantive grounds for dismissal, the ELRC found the termination to be procedurally unfair because the investigation + adjudication roles were merged.

Why This Matters

1. Impartiality is a core component of procedural fairness.
The court emphasised that allowing an investigator to sit on the disciplinary panel undermines the independence and neutrality required of the decision-maker. A fair hearing is not only about giving the employee a chance to respond; it’s also about who hears the evidence and how.

2. Valid reasons do not cure procedural defects.
Here, AFC had credible allegations of negligence and misconduct, but the ELRC held that the flawed process rendered the dismissal unfair. Thus, even if the wheels of misconduct are turning, the fairness of the journey counts.

3. Structural separation of roles matters.
For employers (both public and private), this case is a signal: make sure that the person who investigates alleged misconduct is not the same person who sits in judgment of it. Investigative, prosecutorial and adjudicatory roles should be distinct to preserve fairness and confidence in the outcome.

Practical Take-aways for Employers and HR Teams

• Review your disciplinary policies and panel-structures to ensure that the investigation team is separate from the hearing panel.
• At the hearing, ensure the decision-maker did not have prior direct involvement in evidence-gathering or investigations.
• Document the independence of the disciplinary panel: show that members were not involved in the investigation, that they approached the hearing impartially, and that the employee had a fair opportunity to respond.
• Train hearing panels and HR practitioners on the risk of perceived bias — it is enough for an employee to reasonably think that the adjudicator has been involved in the investigation.

Broader Implications

The decision aligns with broader labour jurisprudence in Kenya and internationally: the right to a fair hearing inherently includes the right to an honest and impartial decision-maker. Its application in the workplace context reinforces employer accountability beyond the substantive merits of misconduct.

Conclusion

Mabonga v Agricultural Finance Corporation is more than another dismissal case — it is a practical blueprint for integrity in disciplinary systems. If the process lacks impartiality, the best of substantive reasons may fail. For HR leaders, legal advisers, and employment practitioners, it’s a timely reminder: fair process is non-negotiable.

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