The University of Nairobi

GROUP 6

GPR 318 LABOUR LAW

29 March, 2020

Page 1
Group members and signatures

G34/83602/2017 ALICE ANINDO

G34/83514/2017 CHAE YVONNE

NYANCHOKA

G34/83418/2017 FARID SIHAM

ATIENO

G34/83444/2017 IRERI CALEB

MBOGO

G34/83608/2017 KASIDHI
VALENTINE

G34/83609/2017 ODHIAMBO
JAPHETH D.
OGUTU
G34/83556/2017 OKEYO KEVIN
OCHIENG

G34/83457/2017 STELLAH NEKESA

Page 2
G34/83419/2017 SUBEIYA HASSAN
ALI

G34/83451/2017 THANDI CYNTHIA

NJERI

Page 3
Contents
Question 1........................................................................................................................................5

The Employment Act, Cap 226...................................................................................................5

The KDF Act, No. 25 of 2012.....................................................................................................6

The Constitution of Kenya, 2010.................................................................................................6

Question 2........................................................................................................................................7

Question 3........................................................................................................................................8

Question 4......................................................................................................................................10

Page 4
Introduction
For years legislators have worked tirelessly in an effort to strike the balance between the
protection of the rights of employees as well as employers. The Employment Act is the key
statute governing employer-employee relations in Kenya. It is of course to be used hand in hand
with other relevant laws and in this case the relevant statute is the KDF Act. Section 3(2) of the
Employment Act however excludes the application of the Act to members of the armed forces.
Whether or not that exclusion can be justified is a question whose answer has been brought to
light in the arguments made below.

Question 1
The Employment Act, Cap 226
Law on employment governs employer-employee relationships by regulating employers’
expectations of employees and duties as well as rights and obligations of both the employer and
employee. It mainly constitutes work time in terms of hours, the minimum wage, discrimination,
health & safety, entitlements such as holidays, dismissal and termination of service, procedures
in disciplinary cases and consortium rights.

Some of the sections in the Employment Act that are relevant with regards to the subject in
question are as follows:

Section 44: explains summary dismissal to be one that lacks a notice.

Regarding this section, every employee has a statutory or contractual right to receive a notice
prior to dismissal from work.

However, summary dismissal may be justified if an employee has radically demonstrated failure
or incapability to execute his contractual duties due to reasons such as intoxication, absenteeism
or deliberate neglect of duty.

S.44(4)(e) further sets out that an action that would constitute blatant misconduct amounting to
summary dismissal is in a case such as if an employee deliberately neglects a conventional and
legitimate command that ranges within his duties and that is assigned by his employer or any
other person at a higher rank than him.

Page 5
S.45(2b) regarding unfair termination dictates that an employer must prove the reasonableness
and rightfulness of the termination in terms of the employee’s behaviour, ability, suitability or
lack thereof in relation to the task at hand, based on the expectations of the employer and it
ought to be implemented procedurally.

S.45 (5), in determining whether termination is fair and just, the following are put into
consideration:

a) How the employer got at the dismissal decision, relaying communication of the same to
the employee concerned and managing any appeal against the decision.

b) The behaviour and ability of the employee till the date of the dismissal.

c) Degree of compliance with legal requirements in connection with termination, which

includes issuance of a certificate and following the required procedure.

d) Precedent practices by the employer in handling similar situations which resulted in

dismissal.

e) The presence of any warning letters issued to the employee prior to the termination.

The Employment Act comes in handy in its elaborate outline of justifiable dismissal as well as
unfair termination and dismissal as illustrated above.

The KDF Act, No. 25 of 2012

The Kenya Defence Forces Act indicates the functions, operation and coordination of the Kenya
Army, Kenya Navy, and the Kenya Air Force and makes provision for interconnected personnel
and forces.

Section 35(9) of the KDF Act sets forth that members of the defence forces are expected to
receive requisite training and suitable equipment prior to their deployment.

Regarding conditions for limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms, the Act dictates that
such limitation is necessary for unique functions to military service based on respect for human
dignity, to ensure defence, guarding the jurisdiction and regional integrity of Kenya,
maintenance of national security, protection of classified information, sustenance of good order
and service discipline as well as ensuring public health and safety.

Page 6
Section 44 of the KDF Act limits the freedom of thought, religion, conscience, opinion and
belief. Subsection (1) states that the right to freedom of the above mentioned as set out in Article
32 of the Constitution of Kenya shall be subjected to limitations with regards to an individual to
whom this Act applies.

Subsection (2) further outlines that all components in the KDF Act or actions authorized by it
shall be automatically rendered consisent with freedom of religion, thought, belief, conscience, ,
and opinion as outlined in Article 32 of the Constitution of Kenya if that’s done:

i. For purposes of security, morality, health, public order and in the interests of defence.

ii. In the interest of protection of rights and freedoms of other individuals including the right
to personal opinion, religion and personal belief without unnecessary intervention of
members of another religion.

The Act also sets a limit to economic and social rights outlined in Article 43 of the Constitution
of Kenya in respect to a person to whom this act applies to the level required for military
coaching and functioning as shall be specified by the directives in section 53 of the KDF Act.

In regard to the abovementioned sections, the KDF Act is useful in evaluation and determining
the case at hand considering Imara Daima is governed by the Act.

The Constitution of Kenya, 2010

Article 24 of the Constitution of Kenya deters any limits to a right or fundamental freedom
except if done by law and exclusively to a reasonable degree based on respect for human life,
freedom and equality.

Any person seeking to impose such limitation should clearly state the nature of the limitation as
well as prove its necessity.

Question 2
Religious beliefs and values inform most of our day to day decisions. Imara Daima, a patriotic
Kenyan, has declared that the military’s battle strategies, guns and weapons go against his
religious beliefs. He has passed all the training required of him except the use of weapons. Is the
commanding officer right by dismissing Imara Daima based on disrespect of lawful orders?
Article 32 states that every person is entitled to freedom of religious belief. The military cannot

Page 7
coerce Imara Daima into accepting strategies that go against his beliefs. His beliefs bar him from
participating in gun, weapons and battle strategies; the military cannot force him. In this case, his
commanding officer infringes on Imara Daima’s rights by dismissing him. Part 4 of the article
states that none shall be compelled to in a way that contradicts his or her religion or beliefs.

Imara Daima having being recruited as a cadet for the Kenya Defence Forces meant that he was
an employee in the military and a member of the Kenya Defence Forces as per section 4(e) and
6(2)(c) of the Kenya Defence Forces Act.1

To determine if Imara Daima really was an employee in the military we can use the control test.
The control test basically describes a situation where the employer has the power to control and
specify the manner in which the employee performs his or her functions. Additionally the
employer can ask the employee to do a certain task at whatever time he (the employer) deems fit.
In Ochieng’ v Amalgamated Saw Mills2 it was held that one can identify whether one is an
employee by taking note of the extent of control an employer has over an employee.

With regards to Imara Daima’s employment under the Kenya Defence Forces we can clearly
deduce that there was an aspect of control by the mere fact that he had a commanding officer
assigned to him. Moreover, he underwent training that which he excelled at meaning he was
receiving instructions from a superior who gave orders and directions throughout the training
process. In Short v J&W Henderson LTD Lord Thankerton stated that one of the ways to
ascertain if one is an employee is to take note of the master’s right to control the method of doing
work3 and this can be concluded from the training Imara Daima received.

Other indications of control that evidence employment as expressed by Lord Thankerton in the
case include power of selection of a servant and the rights of suspension and dismissal 4. These
indications can be found under section 28 and 180 of the Kenya Defence Forces Act where
members of the defence forces are appointed/recruited by the defence council 5and could also be
dismissed from the defence forces by the court martial 6. Lastly, the commanding officer
1
Kenya Defence Forces Act,2012
2
Ochieng’ v Amalgmated Saw Mills, 2005
3
Short v J&W Henderson LTD,1946
4
Ibid
5
Kenya Defence Forces Act,2012
6
Kenya Defence Forces Act,2012

Page 8
reporting Imara Daima for disciplinary actions based on disobedience depict control in the sense
that failure to adhere to the training with respect to weapons meant going against the procedure
laid down by the KDF.

An additional test we can apply in this case is the mutuality of obligations test whereby one of
the factors considered in this test include sufficient control to create a contract of employment.
The KDF distinctly had adequate control over Imara Daima as they dictated to him the manner in
which he should conduct himself failure to which it would attract a disciplinary action.

Along with the above-mentioned points one can also determine employment by taking into
consideration where one works. In this scenario it is evident that Imara Daima is within the
premises of the Kenya Defence Forces as he underwent some training there. Working in the
premises of your place of employment is an indication of employment.

Section 43 (3) of the KDF act complies with article 24 as long as a well-laid criteria is satisfied.
In this case, the section 43 (3) (C) requires the military to operate without discrimination.
Religious belief is one of the rights that cannot be limited according to the constitution.

The fight against discrimination is support by almost all Kenyan legislation. Section 5 of the
Employment Act 2007 condemns discrimination in employment. Section 5 (3) prevents
employers from discriminating their employees based on religion. Thus, Imara Daima’s
dismissal is unconstitutional.

Question 3
Labour relations in the world over, are often guided by contracts of employment between the
employer and employee. These contracts highlight the agreements reached by the contracting
parties. The contract outlines the rights and obligations assigned to both parties. While some
terms of a contract are ordinarily express, some terms are implied. Implied terms arise out of the
circumstances of the particular type of employment

Imara Daima is in an employment contract with the KDF. To this regard there are certain implied
terms that dictate their relationship as employer-employee. One such implied duty is the duty of
obedience and an implied term that the employee will be competent to perform his duties.

Page 9
Common Law custom dictates that where the employer which is inclusive of his supervising
officers issue reasonable instructions pertinent to the line of employment, an employee has an
obligation to heed such instructions. The employer is in a position to determine the related skills,
knowledge and behavioral attitudes that an employee should possess if an employee is to succeed
in a defined role.

In R V Darling Island Stevedore, it was held that an employee is obliged to comply with any
lawful and reasonable instructions given by a supervisor or manager. This duty only ends where
the employee is issued with irrelevant or illegal instructions. The Kenya Defence Forces is
established and anchored in Article 239(1) where it is listed as one of the Security Organs in
Kenya, whose primary function is to promote and guarantee national security in accordance with
aforementioned principles in Article 238(2) b. The service of the defence forces is often needed
in volatile situations that often involve violence and unrest in their service to defend and protect
against internal and external threats that may threaten peace, stability, sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the Republic

Part VI of the KDF Act sets out for service offences. Section 79 provides for disobeying a lawful
order whereby persons subject to the act shall be held liable if they fail to comply with lawful
commands from a superior officer. In this case, Imara failed to comply with the lawful order
from his commanding officer and knowingly refused to undergo training due to his conscience
and belief. While the KDF does not dismiss his beliefs, they certainly do not align with the
services provided by the KDF which lives Imara Daima incompetent and unable to fully render
his services to his employer as set out in his contract. He legally falls short of his obligations as
an employee.

Given the circumstances that employees of the Defence forces often work, there is an implied
condition that the employee must be ready and willing to work. The training involving learning
how to fight in the heat of battle using guns and other weaponry is the mantel piece that holds the
defence forces together. It is a very important part of the Kenya Defence Forces which otherwise
would not be serving the country in the requisite capacity required. An employee not willing to
be the subject to such terms and further is not ready to conform carries values that are not shared
and in line with the objectives of the Defence forces. As such Imara Daima is found to be in

Page 10
fundamental breach of the contract which entitles the employer to dismiss him as long the right
procedure for dismissal is adhered to.

In laws v London Chronicle, Lord Evershed held the opinion that disregard of essential
conditions of the contract of the service by an employee will be enough to justify a dismissal. If
the disobedience or conduct of an employee goes against the essential conditions, the contractual
terms are held to have been violated. Having battle skills is only the most important part of a
contract to work for an employer whose daily task is to diffuse situations that are a threat to
national security. An employee in this setting has a duty not only to protect their nation, but their
team members as well. This exercise is compromised if there are team members that are not
ready to abide by the same.

The constitution of Kenya 2010 provides for fundamental rights and freedoms to be enjoyed by
all Kenyans. However, article 24 of this constitution posits the limitation of some rights and
fundamental freedoms, by law, only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable.
Article 24(5) further outlines the limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms regarding
persons serving in the KDF. In compliance with these provisions, section 43 and 44 of the KDF
Act delineate the limitation to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion which
are set out under article 32 of the constitution of Kenya. If any act under the KDF Act is
reasonably performed for good order and discipline in the Defence Forces, then such an act is not
in in contravention of article 32 of the constitution.

In Palluci Home Depot Ltd v Herskowitz & Ors [2014]; it was held that “A failure to comply
with a reasonable and lawful instruction of an employer may justify a dismissal of an employee
provided that it is willful and deliberate…”

That the KDF requires that Imara Daima report for GSO Cadet Training is not an unreasonable
demand but aligns with the core objectives of the Defence Forces. The KDF is within its legal
right to terminate his employment where such poses a threat to national security, public safety
and is prejudicial to the rights and fundamental freedoms of other individual members of the
Defence Forces.

Given that, the Kenya Defence Forces has objectives that Imara Daima given his beliefs would
be not be able to serve under the Kenya Defence Forces Umbrella. The competence of Imara

Page 11
Daima in the rest of the KDF programme while it might be impressive falls short of the very core
purpose of the Defence Forces. This makes disciplinary action which may lead to a dismissal
justifiable under law grounded on disobedience and ineptitude.

Question 4
Article 27(4) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 guarantees non-discrimination to any citizen. It
states;

‘The state shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground
including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age,
disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth.’7

Further, Article 32(1) of the Constitution states that:

Every person has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion."8

Further, Article 32 (3) and (4) states

"A person may not be denied access to any institution, employment or facility, or the enjoyment
of any right, because of the persons belief or religion. A person shall not be compelled to act, or
engage in any act, that is contrary to the persons belief or religion." 9

However, Section 44 of the KDF Act10 limits this right.

The following are recommendations for reform in the Employment Act11 and KDF Act12 to halt
discrimination on basis of religion, conscience and belief.

1. Amendment of Section 5(3a) of the Employment Act.

This section should be amended to reflect the intendment of Article 27 of the Constitution of
Kenya 2010 that prohibits any form of discrimination. It should expressly include that an
employer should not discriminate an employee based on conscience and belief.
7
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
8
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
9
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
10
Kenya Defences Act No 25 of 2015, Section 44
11
Employment Act Cap 226
12
Kenya Defences Act No 25 of 2015

Page 12
 2. Use of specific language in statutes.

Section 5(4) of the Employment Act13 allows employers to restrict access to limited categories of
employment where it is necessary in the interest of State security. This discretion is broad and
can be misused. The Act should me more specific as to the scope of the limitation.

3. Repeal of Section 44 of the KDF Act

This section that limits the freedom of conscience, religion, though, belief and opinion of
members of the Defence forces should be repealed as it is discriminatory towards members of
the armed forces that hold religious beliefs in the view that in case of conflict of their beliefs and
the interests of the Defence forces, the latter prevails. This contrary to Article 27 of the
Constitution14 that prohibits any form of discrimination.

4. Recognition of the right to conscientious objection

The right of conscientious objection should be legally recognised under the KDF Act as it is
recognized under International law. Members of the defence force should be able to willingly
decline to take part in military services that involves taking of life due to one's beliefs, religion,
conscience or opinion. This human right clearly conflicts with the interest and purpose of the
defence forces which involves combat. However, it is important to legislate to allow members of
the armed forces who wish to declare their right to conscientious objection to serve in the army
in non-combat roles.

5. Time stipulations for accepting requests on grounds of the rights upon being called to
service

The KDF Act15 should be amended to have a provision should have a time limit to accept
applications for those who claim the right to conscientious objection whenever they are called to
service. Most countries have given a period of 15 to 30 days. If accepted, the member of the
defence forces should be assigned to non-combat work. There should a provision to reject late
applications.

6. Access to information

13
Employment Act Cap 226, Section 5 (4)
14
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
15
Kenya Defences Act No 25 of 2015

Page 13
All members of the defence forces should be granted the right to access information as a way of
promoting non-discrimination. It should also be legislated in the KDF Act, stipulating the means
of access, especially about the holding of one’s beliefs while still in service.

7. Establishment of a military tribunal/disciplinary board

This tribunal should regulate justification of assertions for conscientious objection based on
conscience, religion and belief in order to establish the authenticity of the application and if the
given reasons lie within statutory recommendation.

The tribunal should constitute both military and non-military personnel. There should also be an
establishment of a higher tribunal that should deal with appeals form the lower tribunal which
will have the final decision.

8. Religious accommodation

Employees should be allowed to take days off on their day of worship. There should be
prohibition of firing an employee due to missing work as they observed a religious day/ holiday.
Further, the company’s dress code should accommodate one’s religious beliefs such as wearing a
hijab or wearing dreadlocks. Employees should be allowed to display personal items that express
their religion. There should be breaks to allow employees to observe their religious rituals such
as the call for prayer for Muslims. Further, a prayer room should be provided.

Conclusion

As shown in the discussion above, our laws are not exhaustive as of yet because there are
loopholes that still haven’t been catered for. Furthermore, certain provisions need to be revised in
an effort to realize the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of each and every person
even in the scope of employment. Legislators should thus make the necessary amendments and
adjustments to these laws to ensure fair labour relations to both employees as well as their
employers.

REFLECTION PAPERS

Page 14
G34/83418/2017

What I think about the issue in question.

It’s an interesting topic that is rarely discussed in our country. On one hand is the right of an
individual who signs up to protect the country clashing with the interest of the state. One can
argue that granting the right of conscientious objection is likely to threaten national security.

Historically, claiming such a right was viewed as cowardice and people were executed for failing
to obey lawful orders that contradicted their conscience. However, the future seems to carry
better interests for the members of the army. I even interviewed two of my cousins who are
members of the KDF and the US army on the said issues, they were quick to dismiss the right
claiming that the essence of joining the military is to sacrifice one’s life for the state. Interesting
how some of them are unaware of this right.

Why i think that way.

Members of the armed forces are humans who have grown up in our society. Societies with
values, beliefs, religion and culture. Preserving ones culture and religion is as important to a
human being as life itself.

Members of the KDF are employees, entitled to salaries, benefits and freedom to choose what
they want and what they don't. They should therefore not be restricted so much as to have no say.

Dismissal based on refusing to perform a task due to your religious beliefs or opinions is unfair.
The rate of unemployment in Kenya is high as such the country should strive to keep those in
employment whether in active service or on combat service.

Dismissals of such members could be detrimental, one could easily be led to betray his country
as a method of vengeance seeing as they had or probably have a lot of information that could be
beneficial to terrorists

What I have learnt about myself from this group assignment

I work well with others. I gained so much information from my group members. They were
cooperative and we assisted each other in understanding the problem statement.

Page 15
One thing to improve upon based on what I've learnt in the course.

Always seek for different opinions from my classmates as we all interpret things differently.

G34/83444/2017

What I think about the issue in question

I was able to learn the gaps that exist in employment statutes in regards to curbing religious
discrimination in workplaces, be it civilian or in the defence forces. From my comprehension of
the various acts, it is clear that there is a glaring problem that needs to be addressed to as to
breathe life into the intendment of Article 27 of the Constitution.

Why I think that way

I think that way because I have seen the outright limitations in the various acts that almost seem
to contradict the spirit of the Constitution that aims to end all forms of discrimination.

What I have learnt about myself

I have learned that cooperation with my fellow group members who were perfect at
brainstorming and dissection of ideas excellently ideas really. It has been brought to my attention
the education and sensitization I should seek to achieve in employment laws.

What I could improve upon based on what I have learnt so far in the course

I have learned that I need to be more sensitive when it comes to employment and the
discrimination on the basis of religion, conscience and belief that occurs amongst us. I need to
educate myself more and be more accommodative to people’s religious beliefs. I hope in the
future to be cognizant of religious practices so that I do not at all make employment decisions
based on religious preference, harass anyone based on their religion or fail to accommodate my
future colleagues’ religious practices.

G34/83457/2017
Issues: Whether Imara’s dismissal from the KDF would be justified or whether his
thoughts,beliefs, conscience and values that guide him should be respected by the KDF hence be
spared the dismissal on the mentioned grounds.

Page 16
Article 24 of the Constitution of Kenya serves to protect citizens from limitation of their
individual rights. It dictates precisely that such may only be allowed in peculiar cases if the
same is proved necessary, done in good faith and in the interest of preservation of human
freedom and dignity.
Section 44 of The Kenya Defence Forces Act however, limits the freedom of belief, religion,
thought, opinion as well as social and economic rights. This applies exclusively to those to
whom this act applies.
It is essential to comprehend all the regulations of an organ/body before arriving at a decision to
join. The Defence Forces has a mandate to protect and guard the country against enemies and
external attacks. For this reason, it is crucial for all members in the Defence Forces to get proper
training as well as be equipped with weaponry that would come in handy in the heat of battle and
whenever need arises; in cases such as self-defense. For the mentioned reasons, weaponry and
use of violence to take lives is inevitable to all personnel in the Kenya Defence Forces. This is
because, getting rid of that bit would render the Kenya Defence Forces useless. We would only
be left with a name to it.
Personally, in as much as I may be empathetic about Imara Daima’s situation,I have learnt that
where need be, I am able to disregard my emotions and personal thoughts about a situation and
handle issues rationally.
Regarding what I have learnt so far in the course,I would improve on section 44 of the
Employment Act on unfair termination. In my thoughts, it is quite ambiguous. The vagueness
easily paves way for employers to get away with unfair termination and dismissal. I would
suggest a repeal so that it also covers for areas such as retirement age in the private sector to
cater for such issues as whether dismissal of an employee by a private employer on grounds of
old age would constitute unfair dismissal.

G34/83419/2017

The main problem in this question is whether members in the Kenya Defence Forces fall under
the status of an employee as provided for under the employment act. Determining whether Imara
Daima is an employee would help in answering the question of whether he can bring a suit
against the KDF with regards to him being dismissed as a result of refusing to take part in the
General Service Cadet Training. Several tests have been formulated to ascertain whether one

Page 17
falls under the category of employment.From the tests it was clear that Imara Daima fell under
the classification of an employee.

The other issue that arises in this case scenario is the refusal of Imara Daima to take part in the
training that involved use of weaponries because of his values, conscience and religious beliefs.
Is the right to freedom of conscience and religion as provided under the constitution absolute? Or
can they be limited in certain circumstances like these. As per article 24 of the constitution these
rights can be limited for reasons that are justifiable.

The next question to ask oneself is was the KDF’s reason to limit Imara Daima’s right to
freedom of religion reasonable and justifiable? Did his refusal to take part in the training with
regards to use of weaponries and guns amount to disciplinary action which would the lead to
dismissal from working in the KDF? Do the laws of Kenya provide for procedures and
comprehensive statutes to guide us through such a scenario? Through group discussion with my
fellow classmates, I learnt about the doctrine of consecutions objection which basically refers to
an instance where one refuses to participate in the military because of one’s religious and
political beliefs. This doctrine is not provided for in our laws in Kenya meaning our legislators
need to legislate on this matter as there is a lacuna.

Through this assignment I have learnt that I am drawn to take the side of Imara Daima and others
like him out there. I believe that one’s values and religious beliefs should not be compromised
for the sake of a job rather the place of employment should find a way to provide an environment
that is inclusive and accommodative of such people. In my opinion Imara Daima and the likes
provide places of employment with people that can challenge strict norms and procedures which
could lead to the positive growth of the workplace.

G34/83451/2017

The issue presented in the question is on the fundamental freedom of freedom of conscience,
religion, thought, belief and opinion and how it has been interpreted in labor relations. This is a
right that has been recognized internationally as very essential as it is essentially tied to one’s
identity and can be found in the ICCPR as well as most constitutions around the world. To what
extent this right can be limited and for what reasons remains a very contentious issue and a topic
of debate. The question here is how to reconcile these personal beliefs and employment contracts

Page 18
in a way that is not prejudicial to either party. In essence, is there a way for the KDF to
incorporate the beliefs Imara Daima holds in their service?

The United Nation Commission on Human Rights has reiterated that persons performing military
service should not be excluded from the right to have conscientious objectors. While some
countries recognize this right, some countries still insist on having members of the military
perform combat roles. I find that it is more prudent to provide alternatives for people in the
military that caters for differing beliefs. Imara Daima is an asset to the military given that he
excelled in other areas of his training. As a medic, he should have the choice to serve as just that
in a non-combatant role. This opens up the military to more resources and expansion of the work
force that specializes in different areas.

This group assignment has been important in showing me that there is a great deal of legal issues
that I have yet to explore related to human rights. The lines drawn on limitations of fundamental
human rights remain a grey area which when left unchecked contributes to further infringement
of human rights especially in labor relations. Learning more on where these lines are to be drawn
is what I could improve on.

G34/83602/2017

The issue in the question is about national security in the republic of Kenya which is a sensitive
part of this country. In my opinion, persons that would like to be employees of the KDF need to
be willing to sacrifice everything including their personal beliefs and conscience, if at all they
have chosen to be part of one of the most important institutions in Kenya. This is because the job
description is to protect the people of Kenya and its borders at all costs. They have dedicated
their lives and own safety for the greater good of the country hence nothing should compromise
their duty.

From this group work I have learnt to be punctual and work as a team in the shortest time ever in
the history of group works I have ever done. I have also learnt to appreciate the persons that
work in the KDF more, for sacrificing their own lives and some of them leaving their families for
long periods just to protect the rest of us. Based on what I have learnt so far in this course, I
would improve on my interaction with people, for instance domestic workers at home, just so I

Page 19
can understand some of the problems they face in their work, and maybe try to find ways to
assist them where I can.

G34/83609/2017

The question brings to light the challenges a medic faces as an employee of the Kenya Defense
Forces. Medical Practitioners swear an oath to protect life. However, taking part in gun, weapons
and battles strategies of the military contradicts that oath. There is no line between one’s
conscience and the duties/responsibilities of a military employee.

Imara Daima’s religious beliefs could cost him his job at the military. Why is that so? What are
the rights and freedoms that are limited for those working in the military? Article 24 of the
Constitution of Kenya recognizes employees of the Kenya Defense Forces as a special class and
goes ahead to list the rights that are limited for that particular class. Moreover, the KDF Act that
guides the military also limits labour relations.

The ethics that guide Imara Daima, as a medical practitioner, clash with the roles expected of
him as an employee of the military. What happens when such inconsistency arises? The military
will probably compel you to forego your beliefs. But that is unconstitutional as stipulated in
article 32. There should be clear legislation in as far as medical practitioners within the military
are concerned.

What do we learn from the question? When choosing a career path it is wise to choose something
that does not contradict your beliefs; something that does not force you to drop your beliefs.
Nonetheless, be assertive and always stand up for what you believe in.

G34/83514/2017

The issue in question has been a thought-provoking one to me since it involves the limitation of
fundamental rights and freedoms of a person. On one hand, I firmly believed that each and every
person’s rights and fundamental freedoms should be protected by the state at all cost. As I got to
delve into the question from a closer lens I however reached the conclusion that the limitations to
certain rights and freedoms are merited. I am aligned to this school of thought for the sole reason

Page 20
that without these limitations then society as we know it wouldn’t exist but rather chaos and
disorder would prevail.

What I have learnt about myself is that I like looking at both sides of a coin; something I have
found to be a strength and especially in this noble profession. One thing I can improve on is
reading widely and not only limiting myself to course material because as I have learnt so far in
the course, other material other than the course material have substantial information that has
helped and contributed to my understanding of the course.

G34/83556/2017

This work ranks high in my list of thought-provoking assignments taken over the course of my
university education. I think the question brings to light several issues but mainly what gaps exist
in the law intended to curb discrimination at the workplace for civilians and members of the
military. There is a significant issue of whether an individual’s dismissal can be justified based
on his religion, conscience, thoughts and values that guide his actions – and whether the same
can result into discrimination. I think that there is a need to create further legislation to give
effect to Article 27 of the Constitution.

I have learnt through this assignment that group work is better than I thought. This particular
group has been cooperative. We brainstormed over video meets and actively dissected the matter
in a soul-fulfilling way. However, I realised that I ought to pay more attention to discrimination
in employment – and to study widely through analysis of articles what ought to be done in law to
improve the Kenyan situation.

G34/83608/2017

The issue in question, to a certain extent presents a reflection of a long-time debate; a question
that many a scholar have attempted to answer, the debate between public interest and personal
interest. Historically, in the ensuing debate, personal interests or human rights, have prevailed.
Overtime, jurisprudence has shifted gradually from upholding state interests to protecting the
fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens. This trend is usually initiated in the public
international law regime, whereby a community of nations step forward and sign treaties and
conventions that aim at promoting and protecting human rights. The spirit of protecting the
human dignity cascades down to the municipal law regime, whereby many a legislation is

Page 21
implemented in order to replicate the statement made in the international fora. The labour law
regime is not exempted from this human rights-oriented trend. The promotion and protection of
the fundamental rights and freedoms of workers has become the very essence of labour law.
Even more specifically, the interests of soldiers have received increased recognition and
protection in light of this paradigm shift. Consequently, I support this trend that tends to lean
heavily towards the individual interests.

From my observation, the issue in question revolves around the maxim, ‘labor is not a
commodity but is also a commodity’ and the ensuing debate surrounding the maxim. Therefore,
reverting to my earlier support for the human rights-oriented jurisprudence, I am of the opinion
that commodification of labour is an affront to human dignity. The definition of a laborer cannot
be separated from the social, economic and political environment. Thus, the individual interests
of a laborer are equally of paramount importance as his contractual performance.

My theoretical reflection aside. I have gained immensely from this group work and even more
importantly, from my colleagues. They have put their best foot forward towards the completion
of this assignment, thus displaying an array of vital skills, not limited to critical thinking,
effective writing and communication, effectual research skills, and teamwork.

I am looking forward to improve on my depth of knowledge in the labour law regime, and team
work mentality.

Page 22