Arusha. The Court of Appeal has overturned decisions by the High Court and the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) that had ruled in favour of eight former employees of Teofilo Kisanji University (TEKU), holding that they failed to exhaust internal appeal procedures before lodging their complaint.
The appellate court ruled that the employees erred in law by bypassing the university’s internal appeal mechanism and proceeding directly to the CMA.
The judgment was delivered on Monday, May 11, 2026, by a panel comprising Justices Rehema Mkuye, Dr Eliezer Feleshi, and Dr Deo Nangela in Civil Appeal No. 1459 of 2024.
After reviewing submissions and records from both sides, the court nullified the proceedings before the CMA and the High Court, saying the employees ought to have first sought redress through TEKU’s Staff Disciplinary Appeals Committee before filing their dispute externally.
The appeal was lodged by the TEKU Board of Trustees and the university’s Vice Chancellor against Hamis Bakari, Nyanjige Mayala, Boany Dahaye, Edson Wikedzi, Ndinhesya Asukenie, Mponjoli Mwandamboi, Ishmail Mwambapa, and Amani Simbeye.
The dispute stemmed from the dismissal of the employees, who served as tutors and lecturers, on September 6, 2013, following allegations of misconduct.
Among the accusations was the establishment of a private company, Grow Big Company, which allegedly engaged in activities that conflicted with the university's interests and used TEKU’s address for its operations.
The employees were also accused of locking university leaders inside their offices.
The fourth, sixth, and eighth respondents, Edson, Mponjoli, and Amani, alongside other unnamed employees, were further accused of unlawfully confining the then Deputy Vice Chancellor for Finance, Mr Israel Mwaikenda, in his office for four hours.
One of the respondents, Amani, was additionally accused of holding a press conference within university premises without authorisation.
Following the allegations, a disciplinary hearing was conducted on August 29 and 30, 2013.
The disciplinary committee found the employees guilty and recommended their dismissal, which took effect on September 6 that year.
Their dismissal letters granted them the right to appeal to the Staff Disciplinary Appeals Committee within five days.
However, instead of pursuing that route, they filed a complaint before the CMA, arguing that their dismissal had been unlawful.
Before the CMA, the employees argued that the disciplinary process had been biased because the chairman of the disciplinary committee, Mr Mwaikenda, was also the complainant in the matter.
They further contended that the committee had not been properly constituted because one member lacked the qualifications required under the law.
The employees also argued that the regulations they were accused of breaching did not officially exist and that the punishment imposed on them was discriminatory because other employees facing similar accusations had not been dismissed.
TEKU defended the dismissals, maintaining that all disciplinary procedures had been followed and that the employees had been accorded an opportunity to defend themselves before the final decision was reached.
After hearing both parties, the CMA ruled that the dismissals were procedurally and substantively unfair.
The commission awarded the employees compensation equivalent to 50 months’ salary, Sh60 million each in general damages, as well as other employment-related benefits.
However, TEKU challenged the ruling before the High Court.
The High Court largely upheld the CMA’s findings that the dismissals were unlawful, but reduced the compensation from 50 months’ salary to 15 months and set aside the Sh60 million awarded to each employee as general compensation.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, TEKU appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Judges’ findings
During the hearing, the Court of Appeal identified two central legal issues, including whether the employees had failed to exhaust internal appeal procedures before approaching the CMA.
Justice Nangela said the issue was fundamental because the university had already established a formal mechanism for handling disciplinary disputes.
The court held that internal dispute resolution mechanisms are not optional but constitute a mandatory legal requirement.
According to the judgment, internal procedures allow employers to correct errors before disputes are escalated externally, while also creating records that may later assist the courts.
The Court of Appeal cited its earlier decisions in Bayport Financial Services versus Cresense Mwandele and Isaya Joseph Chawinga versus the Commissioner General of Immigration, emphasising that complainants must first exhaust internal mechanisms before seeking intervention from external bodies such as the CMA.
The judges found that the employees were fully aware of the existence of TEKU’s Staff Disciplinary Appeals Committee but deliberately chose not to lodge their appeal before it.
“That omission had serious consequences and rendered the cases filed before the CMA premature,” the judgment stated.
On that basis, the Court of Appeal held that the proceedings before the CMA were invalid from the outset, rendering the High Court’s decision legally unsustainable.
Invoking powers under Section 6(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, the court quashed all proceedings instituted before the CMA together with the High Court judgment in Labour Revision No. 36 of 2018.
“All decisions, orders, and directives arising from those proceedings are hereby quashed,” the court ruled.
However, the judges noted that the employees remain at liberty to pursue their claims before a competent court or authority. The court further ordered that each party would bear its own costs.
