After 22 years of service, James Muigai Muthungu faces another legal setback following contested disciplinary proceedings. Justice Onesmus Makau ruled that he must appeal to the Anglican Church’s Provincial Tribunal first. The judge acknowledged that the Bishop’s own instructions appeared to have misdirected the priest.
The Anglican Church of Kenya has secured another courtroom reprieve in its dispute with a long-serving priest.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court has declined to intervene in James Muigai Muthungu’s disciplinary dispute.
In a ruling delivered on October 29, 2026, Justice Onesmus Makau dismissed Muthungu’s application.
He also struck out his employment claim, directing him towards the church’s internal appellate system.
The decision follows more than two years of disciplinary uncertainty.
It leaves unresolved whether the church lawfully handled allegations against the former minister.
It also raises questions about confusing instructions and accountability within religious institutions.
Disciplinary Trouble
Muthungu served under the Anglican Church’s Diocese of Mt Kenya South for 22 years.
He joined the church as an evangelist in 2002 before becoming clergy in 2011. His net monthly salary stood at KSh90,000.
His troubles began on May 7, 2024, when the church ordered him aside.
The instruction required him to step aside indefinitely pending investigations into alleged misconduct.
A subsequent letter dated May 20 placed him on interdiction.
The three-month suspension ran from June 1 through August 31, 2024. He was entitled to half his salary during that period.
On September 3, the Bishop presented Muthungu with four disciplinary options.
Four days later, he selected the Diocesan Pastoral Care Committee.
He also requested evidence seven days before proceedings and permission for legal representation.
The Bishop subsequently summoned him to appear before the committee. The hearing was scheduled for November 1, 2024.
However, Muthungu protested that investigators had withheld the requested evidence.
He nevertheless attended the meeting, accompanied by his lawyer.
His advocate raised objections, but the committee reportedly rejected them. The lawyer was subsequently directed to leave.
On December 10, the Bishop communicated his decision following the proceedings. He notified Muthungu of an intention to withdraw his priestly licence.
The letter cited his admission to 40 per cent of the allegations. It also ordered him to surrender his ordination documents and black stole.
Wrong Appeal
The Bishop’s letter offered Muthungu 30 days to appeal to Archbishop.
He subsequently lodged his appeal on January 9, 2025, seeking reinstatement. He challenged the disciplinary process and demanded restoration of his ministerial privileges.
But the appeal encountered an immediate procedural complication. On January 17, the Provincial Chancellor questioned its legal basis.
The Chancellor reportedly considered the dispute exclusively diocesan.
Muthungu maintained that the Bishop had expressly authorised the appeal.
With the matter unresolved, he subsequently approached the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
His first case, Cause E090 of 2025, encountered another setback. The church argued that he had failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms. On October 23, 2025, the court upheld that objection.
Following the ruling, Muthungu requested activation of the internal appeal process.
His November 13, 2025, letter reportedly received no substantive response. More than five months later, the appeal remained unresolved.
He returned to court on April 13, 2026, seeking exceptional permission.
He argued that the prolonged delay justified judicial intervention. His application invoked constitutional protections and the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Tribunal Difference
Justice Makau’s examination of the church constitution exposed a crucial distinction. The Diocesan Pastoral Care Committee was not a disciplinary tribunal.
Under Article X, the committee oversees pastoral work and rehabilitates errant clergy.
It can hear accusations referred by the Bishop and make recommendations. However, its mandate does not include conducting formal disciplinary trials.
The actual Diocesan Tribunal operates under Canon XIII. It comprises the Vicar General, three experienced priests and three laypersons.
One lay member must be a lawyer appointed by the Diocesan Synod.
The tribunal conducts disciplinary trials involving priests and deacons. Its appellate counterpart is the Provincial Tribunal, established under Canon XXI.
That provision allows appeals against judgements or sentences issued by diocesan tribunals or bishops.
Justice Makau consequently found that Muthungu should have approached the Provincial Tribunal.
Instead, he followed the Bishop’s instructions and appealed to the Archbishop.
The judge found that the church constitutions prescribed no such appellate route.
Court’s Verdict
Interestingly, Justice Makau acknowledged that the Bishop’s instructions appeared to mislead Muthungu.
He stated, “I would not wish to blame the claimant for complying with the orders” of the person who made the decision.
Nevertheless, the judge considered Muthungu’s lengthy church service and legal representation.
He observed that the claimant should have understood the applicable disciplinary procedures.
His lawyer also had an opportunity to examine the church constitution.
The judge invoked the exhaustion doctrine, citing Speaker of the National Assembly v James Njenga Karume [1992] eKLR.
The Court of Appeal had established that prescribed grievance procedures should be strictly followed.
Justice Makau therefore declined to assume jurisdiction before internal appeals were exhausted.
READ ALSO: KCB Employee of 19 Years Loses Unfair Dismissal Case After Citing Serious Health Problems
He dismissed the application, struck out the memorandum of claim and awarded costs to the church.
Importantly, the ruling does not establish that Muthungu was lawfully dismissed.
Neither does it determine whether the disciplinary hearing respected his constitutional rights.
The legality of withdrawing his priestly licence remains unresolved.
Muthungu remains free to pursue the prescribed appeal before returning to court.
For now, his immediate legal battle shifts back to the church. His 22-year ministry remains overshadowed by a disciplinary dispute without final resolution.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
