Taxpayer Catherine Nduta Wangari triggered the EACC probe that led to KRA employee Tyson Marango Owuor’s dismissal over an alleged KSh3 million bribe demand.
Owuor sought reinstatement, arguing the termination denied him a fair hearing and stripped his family of his salary and medical cover.
Tyson Marango Owour has suffered an early courtroom defeat after a judge rejected his bid to return to KRA.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi dismissed his application seeking temporary reinstatement.
Justice Monica Mbaru ruled that granting the orders would effectively restore him to employment.
That, the judge found, would amount to reinstatement before hearing the main petition.
The ruling, delivered on August 31, leaves the larger employment dispute unresolved for now.
Arrest Before Dismissal
Owour’s troubles began on June 22, 2026, with his arrest by EACC officers.
The anti-graft agency had accused him and another KRA official of demanding Sh3 million.
The alleged payment concerned a Capital Gains Tax assessment worth Sh4.5 million.
EACC said investigators caught the officials receiving Sh900,000 as part payment.
The money was recovered during the operation before the suspects were arrested.
The arrest thrust Owour into both criminal investigations and an internal employment dispute.
He was subsequently released on cash bail, according to his court papers.
Owour maintained that he had not been convicted of any criminal offence.
He nevertheless soon faced another battle, this time within his employer.
KRA Moves In
According to KRA, the authority launched its own investigation after the EACC operation.
On June 26, officials summoned the taxpayer who had reported Owour.
The taxpayer, Catherine Nduta Wangari, recorded a statement during those investigations.
Owour was subsequently asked to explain his side of the disputed encounter.
He submitted his statement to KRA on June 30, according to court documents.
KRA said Owour admitted meeting Wangari at a bank during the disputed transaction.
His explanation was that he had gone there to collect a cheque.
The authority rejected that explanation as inconsistent with its payment systems.
KRA said its officers could not accept cash or cheque payments from taxpayers.
It also said iTax provided no mechanism for such transactions.
The authority subsequently terminated Owour’s employment under section 44(4)(g).
Owour, however, alleged that the dismissal followed an even more troubling demand.
He told the court that two KRA officials demanded his resignation on July 1.
He claimed they warned that termination would follow if he refused.
Two days later, KRA issued the termination letter dated July 3.
Owour accused the authority of denying him a proper disciplinary hearing.
He argued that the process violated his constitutional right to fair administrative action.
He also said the dismissal had destroyed his livelihood and medical cover.
The Legal Trap
But the court found that Owour’s application faced a fundamental legal problem.
His employment had already ended when he approached the court for relief.
Suspending the July 3 termination letter would therefore change the existing position.
In the judge’s words, “Such is an order of reinstatement pending the hearing.”
That distinction ultimately became the centrepiece of the ruling.
The court noted that reinstatement is not an ordinary interim remedy.
Under Rule 53, the court should not grant an ex parte reinstatement order.
Justice Monica Mbaru further relied on several Court of Appeal decisions on reinstatement.
Those authorities establish that specific performance in employment contracts remains exceptional.
The court particularly cited Co-operative Bank v Banking Insurance & Finance Union.
It also relied on Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd v Wasike.
The ruling further cited KRA v Gitahi & Others on exceptional circumstances.
Together, those decisions raised the threshold facing Owour significantly.
Bigger Battle Ahead
The judge accepted that Owour had suffered genuine financial hardship after losing employment.
However, that hardship alone did not justify the extraordinary remedy he sought.
The court found that his circumstances did not qualify as exceptional.
There was another reason for refusing the application.
The interim orders substantially mirrored the relief sought in the main petition.
Granting them could therefore have effectively decided the dispute prematurely.
The court instead left those questions for determination during the substantive hearing.
That means the ruling does not establish that KRA lawfully dismissed Owour.
It also does not determine whether his constitutional rights were actually violated.
Those questions remain alive within the main petition before the court.
For now, however, Owour remains outside KRA as the litigation continues.
The court dismissed his July 21 application as lacking merit.
It ordered that costs would follow the outcome of the main petition.
READ ALSO: Court Says JOOUST Rightly Fired KSh610,000-a-Month HR Manager
The immediate victory therefore belongs to KRA, but the larger battle remains unfinished.
At its heart, the case now raises a broader employment question.
How far should courts go when an employee seeks protection after termination?
For Owour, that question has become more than an abstract legal principle.
It now determines whether his fight against KRA can eventually return him to office.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
