Employees dismissed after securing public jobs with forged academic certificates cannot rely on those appointments to challenge their employers’ actions or claim pensions and other terminal benefits, the Employment and Labour Relations Court has ruled.
In a judgment reinforcing the government’s crackdown on fake qualifications in the public service, the court dismissed a petition filed by three former Kenya Railways employees, finding that their appointments were founded on fraud and were therefore void from the beginning.
The court ruled that no legal rights could arise from illegal employment and declined to stop the State from pursuing recovery proceedings or other lawful action against them.
“The employment of the petitioners obtained through fraud was null and void from inception. No right can be founded on an illegality,” the court said.
The ruling arose from a dispute over the government’s nationwide verification of academic and professional certificates in the public service.
In October 2022, the Public Service Commission (PSC) directed ministries, state corporations and agencies to audit qualifications of recently recruited officers, before issuing subsequent circulars expanding the exercise to all public servants regardless of when they were hired.
Those later directives declared appointments secured through forged certificates void from the outset and recommended dismissal, recovery of salaries and benefits, and referral for criminal investigations.
The three former employees argued that the PSC had exceeded its own directive after Kenya Railways verified their qualifications, summarily dismissed them and moved to recover salaries and employment benefits already paid.
“The petitioners can therefore not ride on illegally obtained employment to seek benefits therefrom,” the court said.
They asked the court to declare that their constitutional rights had been breached, block any further action against them and compel Kenya Railways to pay their terminal dues.
The petitioners maintained that the PSC’s initial circular of October 19, 2022 required verification of officers recruited within the preceding 10 years and did not apply to them because they had served for more than two decades.
They also argued that they were dismissed without a fair hearing and that the planned recovery of salaries, benefits and pensions, together with possible criminal prosecution, breached their constitutional rights.
Kenya Railways disputed those claims, saying all three petitioners fell within the category of employees whose qualifications required verification.
The corporation said one petitioner was first employed in October 2017 before securing another appointment in 2021 using a diploma certificate.
The second joined in August 2020 as a station master, while the third was initially hired on contract in November 2017 before obtaining permanent employment in 2021.
The Kenya School of Law told the court that verification established irregularities in the academic documents presented by two petitioners.
It said one certificate carried an index number belonging to a different candidate who sat the 1992 Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education examination, while another certificate contained an index number that did not exist for the stated examination centre.
The PSC argued that subsequent circulars issued in 2023, 2024 and 2025 expanded certificate authentication to all public officers regardless of their recruitment dates.
It maintained that appointments secured through forged certificates were void from inception and did not attract pensions, leave pay or other employment benefits.
In its judgment, the court found that the petitioners never challenged the authenticity findings upon which their dismissals were based.
“Strangely, the petitioners do not challenge the sixth respondent’s findings regarding the copies of the submitted and authenticated certificates,” the court said.
“The fact that employment was obtained through forged certificates is not challenged. The fact of existing fraud is not denied.”
The court also held that the dispute had been wrongly presented as a constitutional petition instead of an ordinary employment claim.
It said employment disputes should ordinarily be pursued under the Employment Act unless a litigant demonstrates constitutional questions that cannot be addressed through existing labour laws.
