Justice Stella Rutto found that Maua Methodist Hospital failed to prove allegations against former chief executive Justus Mwiti Marete. The court exposed serious flaws in his disciplinary hearing, including withheld evidence, denied representation, and a compromised panel.
A court has ordered Maua Methodist Hospital and the Methodist Church in Kenya to pay former chief executive Justus Mwiti Marete KSh4.93 million.
Justice Stella Rutto declared his September 2024 dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair.
The judgement, delivered on October 23, 2026, faulted the respondents for failing to establish valid grounds for termination.
It also found that the disciplinary process denied Marete essential safeguards under employment law.
The award comprises compensation, notice pay, withheld salary, and accrued leave. The respondents must also pay interest and legal costs.
Beyond the financial penalty, the ruling delivers a pointed lesson about workplace discipline.
Employers cannot replace evidence with suspicion or treat a hearing as a procedural formality.
Contract Dispute
Marete joined Maua Methodist Hospital as chief executive on February 1, 2019. His initial one-year contract was followed by a three-year agreement ending January 31, 2023.
He maintained that former Presiding Bishop Reverend Joseph Ntombura renewed his contract for another three years.
That extension would have kept him in office until January 2026.
The respondents disputed the renewal, arguing that the hospital board had never approved it.
They also questioned Ntombura’s authority following a consent order that deemed his tenure expired on August 3, 2022.
However, Justice Rutto examined the hospital’s conduct after the disputed contract expired. Marete continued working, receiving his salary and performing the chief executive’s duties.
In March 2024, Presiding Bishop Bishop Isaiah Deye appointed him to the hospital’s Board of Management.
Subsequent compulsory leave and dismissal letters also identified Marete as the chief executive.
The judge concluded that the respondents could not deny the employment relationship after recognising it through their actions.
She held they were “estopped from denying the existence of an employment relationship” during the disputed period.
That finding meant the hospital still had to justify Marete’s dismissal under employment law.
21 Allegations
The dispute unfolded amid complaints about staff welfare, salary disparities, workload and management decisions.
The respondents accused Marete of favouritism, nepotism, mismanagement, and failing to address employee grievances.
They also questioned his financial decisions, including an agreement involving an oxygen plant.
The memorandum of understanding with African Mission Healthcare was signed on October 28, 2021.
The hospital argued that Marete exceeded his authority by signing the agreement. It also raised concerns about a possible conflict of interest involving the partnership.
Marete’s former financial controller, Josphat Mwaura Wanyoike, offered a different account.
He testified that financial decisions were not made unilaterally and defended the oxygen plant’s operational benefits.
The court found insufficient evidence establishing that Marete had improperly entered the agreement.
It also questioned the respondents’ failure to challenge the arrangement while it remained operational.
Another allegation concerned cheques bearing altered payee details. Marete admitted signing them but said the bank manager alerted him to the alteration.
He testified that he consulted the financial controller and instructed that the cheques be cancelled.
The respondents did not adequately controvert that explanation or establish his responsibility for the resulting losses.
The judge found that signing the cheques alone did not prove negligence. The respondents needed evidence connecting Marete to the alleged wrongdoing.
A Flawed Hearing
The court’s sharpest criticism concerned the disciplinary process preceding Marete’s dismissal. He received 21 allegations in July 2024 and submitted his response two days later.
Marete subsequently sought particulars, supporting documents, and more time to prepare. In an email dated September 4, he requested an adjournment to September 20 or 27.
The respondents did not adequately answer his requests or explain the refusal to postpone proceedings. The court found that he had been denied documents necessary to prepare his defence.
It also found that the hospital barred him from attending with a fellow employee.
That restriction contradicted Section 41 of the Employment Act and the hospital’s human resource policy.
A further concern involved disciplinary panel member Isabella Karuthu Meme. She had previously served on the investigative committee recommending disciplinary action against Marete.
The judge found that her participation in both stages compromised the process’s impartiality.
A fair hearing requires more than issuing allegations and inviting an employee to respond.
Employers must provide adequate notice, disclose relevant evidence and consider reasonable requests for preparation time.
They must also ensure that disciplinary decisions are made impartially.
Justice Rutto concluded that the respondents had failed on both substantive and procedural fairness.
The Final Bill
The court awarded Marete KSh3,448,900, equivalent to seven months’ salary, as compensation.
It also granted KSh492,700 in notice pay and KSh424,200 in withheld September salary.
A further KSh566,605 covered 34.5 accrued leave days.
The court reduced his leave claim after considering an earlier email about forfeiting accumulated leave.
The total award stands at KSh4,932,405, excluding interest and costs. The respondents must also issue Marete a certificate of service within 30 days.
READ ALSO: Samson Misango: Kiambu County to Pay Doctor KSh520,588 for Stopping Salary Without Hearing
The judge rejected separate claims for constitutional damages and defamation because the evidence was insufficient.
She also rejected the respondents’ counterclaims because they had not been properly brought.
The judgement does not establish that every management concern was baseless. Instead, it finds that the hospital failed to prove lawful grounds for dismissing Marete.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
