Former Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) Secretary-General Wilson Sossion may be celebrating what he terms a major legal victory. However, a careful reading of court records suggests that he is not yet entirely out of the woods as he eyes a return to the union’s top seat.
On Friday, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) had valid and lawful grounds to terminate Sossion’s employment as a teacher but faulted the process used, declaring that it suffered procedural flaws.
That distinction — lawful termination but procedurally defective — is critical.
The Origin of the Dispute
The legal saga dates back to 2017, when Sossion, while serving as KNUT Secretary-General and on leave of absence from the teaching service, was nominated by the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) to the National Assembly to represent workers.
Following his swearing-in as a Member of Parliament, TSC issued a notice to show cause on December 14, 2017, questioning why he should not be terminated under Regulation 187(2) of the Code of Regulations for Teachers (CORT), which requires teachers to resign or retire once they opt to participate in political activities.
On January 17, 2018, TSC terminated his services, citing breach of Regulation 187 and Section 16(2) of the Public Officers Ethics Act.
Sossion challenged the decision in Nairobi Petition No. 12 of 2018, but the Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed the petition in July 2019. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal.
What the Court of Appeal Actually Said
In its February 27, 2026 judgment in Civil Appeal No. 476 of 2019, the Court of Appeal made two key findings.
First, it upheld the substantive reason for termination. The judges were categorical that Sossion ought to have resigned upon accepting nomination to Parliament and that his failure to do so constituted valid grounds for termination.
The Court stated that he did not resign as required by Article 77(1) of the Constitution and Regulation 187 of CORT, and to that extent, there were valid reasons for terminating his employment as a registered teacher.
Second, while affirming that the grounds were valid, the Court faulted TSC’s disciplinary procedure. It held that TSC failed to follow the mandatory disciplinary process set out in Regulations 144–156 of CORT.
However, the final orders are decisive. The Court ruled that the appeal partially succeeded to the extent that it granted a declaration that the termination process was not in accordance with the prescribed regulations, and that all other grounds of appeal and reliefs sought failed.
There was no order reinstating him to employment. There was no quashing of termination. There was no compensation awarded.
The Court affirmed the decision’s legality — but criticised the procedure.
The Deregistration Issue
Separately from termination, Sossion’s deregistration from the Teachers Register.
On November 1, 2019, TSC published a Gazette Notice removing his name from the register under Section 30 of the Teachers Service Commission Act.
He challenged that deregistration in ELRC Petition No. 224 of 2019. However, on May 4, 2021, the Court dismissed the petition as meritless.
The Court held that Sossion had been served with a notice of intended removal but did not respond within the prescribed 90 days. It also found no bad faith on the part of the Commission.
Under Section 30(5) of the TSC Act, once removed from the register, a person ceases to be a teacher for purposes of the Act unless reinstated by direction of the Commission.
Reinstatement must be expressly ordered. It cannot be implied.
Ruling: Victory, But Not Full Clearance
Friday’s ruling reaffirmed that termination was lawful, though procedurally flawed. That means the legal basis for termination remains intact.
In employment law, a finding of procedural unfairness does not automatically restore employment unless reinstatement is expressly ordered. The Court of Appeal limited its relief to a declaration regarding process.
Therefore, unless there is a separate appellate decision overturning the 2021 dismissal of the deregistration and expressly restoring him to the Teachers Register, the regulatory consequences may still stand.
What This Means for KNUT Elections
KNUT’s constitution traditionally requires that candidates for Secretary-General be registered teachers and members in good standing.
If deregistration remains legally effective, eligibility becomes contestable.
While Sossion has publicly celebrated reinstatement and framed the ruling as a complete vindication, the judicial record shows a more complex reality.
Valid grounds for termination were upheld. Procedural flaws were acknowledged. Deregistration was previously upheld in 2021. No explicit reinstatement order appears in the termination appeal judgment.
Unless a court has expressly quashed the Gazette Notice removing him from the register and ordered restoration to the register — or TSC has independently reinstated him — legal ambiguity remains.
Sossion has secured an important procedural victory. But the Court of Appeal did not declare his termination substantively unlawful. It did not overturn the foundational reasoning that he ought to have resigned before assuming parliamentary office.
In legal terms, that distinction matters.
As KNUT heads toward elections, the question is no longer political momentum but regulatory clarity. Until reinstatement to the Teachers Register is unequivocally confirmed by an express judicial or administrative order, Sossion’s path back to the union’s top seat may still face legal scrutiny.
He has won ground — but he may not yet be entirely out of the woods.
By Joseph Mambili
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
>>> Click here to read more informed opinions on the country’s education landscape
