Why St Anne’s principal lost fight against TSC

This story has significance for readers across Kenya and beyond.

Former St Anne’s Girls Secondary School principal Veronica Mutwa Muli has lost her court battle against the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) over disciplinary action arising from an incident in which students were locked out of the school over unpaid fees.

In a ruling delivered on August 14, 2026, the Employement and Labour Relations Court dismissed Ms Muli’s petition, holding that the dispute was essentially an employment matter that should have been pursued through the ordinary labour court process rather than a constitutional petition.

The case arose from events of January 7, 2025, when students reporting back to St Anne’s Girls Secondary School in Makadara, Nairobi, were allegedly denied entry because they had not cleared their fees or had reported late.

The incident sparked public outrage after photographs and videos circulated on social media showing students seated outside the school gate late into the night.

Some of the learners had reportedly travelled from distant parts of the country, including Garissa, Kisii and Mombasa.

The situation drew the attention of local leaders and education officials with Makadara MP George Aladwa intervening after receiving reports that students had been stranded outside the school compound.

Education officials and TSC officers later visited the school to investigate the incident.

Following the investigations, TSC initiated disciplinary proceedings against Ms Muli. Court documents show that the commission considered complaints arising from the incident and subjected her to its internal disciplinary process.

A disciplinary panel eventually recommended that she be issued with a warning.

It was the warning that prompted Ms Muli to move to court.

In her petition, she challenged the disciplinary process, arguing that her constitutional rights had been violated.

She also questioned the application of Regulation 147(4) of the Code of Regulations for Teachers, arguing that the court should determine whether the provision was consistent with constitutional protections.

TSC opposed the petition, arguing that the dispute arose directly from Ms Muli’s employment relationship with the commission.

The commission maintained that the issues raised could be dealt with through the ordinary legal avenues available to employees challenging disciplinary decisions and did not warrant a constitutional petition.

The Ministry of Education and other parties also challenged their inclusion in the case, arguing that they neither employed nor disciplined Ms Muli.

They maintained that TSC has the constitutional and statutory mandate to recruit, manage and discipline teachers in its employment.

Ms Muli, however, argued that her case raised broader constitutional questions and was not merely an employment dispute. She said issues relating to access to information, fair administrative action and the right to a fair hearing required constitutional interpretation by the court.

Justice M Mbaru sided with the respondents.

The judge noted that Ms Muli had acknowledged being in an employment relationship with TSC and that the dispute arose from disciplinary proceedings undertaken by her employer.

The court held that even where an employee alleges violation of constitutional rights, such complaints can still be raised in an ordinary employment claim before the Employment and Labour Relations Court.

“The challenge to the application of Regulation 147(4) of the Code of Regulations for Teachers, and the matters set out in the petition, can well be addressed in a Memorandum of Claim. This is not a proper petition,” Justice Mbaru ruled.

The judge also found that the Ministry of Education and other parties had been unnecessarily included in the proceedings because Ms Muli had not sought specific orders against them.

According to the court, TSC remained responsible for any liability arising from the disciplinary process because it was Ms Muli’s employer.

“Whether other government agencies participated in the challenged disciplinary process or not, the ultimate duty holder for any alleged liability is the employer,” the judge said.

The court consequently dismissed the petition and awarded costs to the respondents and the Board of Management of St Anne’s Secondary School, which had been named as the first interested party.

Reporting originally appeared via Nation Africa. Read the full source for additional context.