- In recent court ruling involving a veteran teacher offers important lessons about absence from duty.
- Astiba Kebon’go explains why notifying a school administrator may not amount to obtaining official permission.
- Teachers should understand leave procedures, document approvals and protect themselves from avoidable disciplinary disputes.
What appears to be a minor administrative requirement can have major consequences for a teacher’s career.
A telephone call can take seconds. A text message can take even less. But when a teacher needs to be away from duty, those few seconds may not be enough to protect a career built over decades.
The recent court decision involving veteran teacher Cleophas Ngeywa, whose 25-year teaching career ended after a disciplinary dispute over his absence from duty, offers a sobering reminder to every teacher: seeking official permission is not a mere formality. It is a professional safeguard.
What may appear to be a small administrative matter can, under the wrong circumstances, have consequences far greater than anyone anticipates—including the loss of employment.
This is where many professionals may inadvertently find themselves on dangerous ground. A teacher may have a perfectly understandable reason for being away from school. A parent may be critically ill. A child may require urgent attention. A family crisis may arise without warning.
The reason may be genuine, compelling and deserving of compassion. Yet good intentions alone do not necessarily confer official authority to be absent.
The lesson from the Ngeywa case is therefore not that teachers should choose duty over humanity. Rather, it is that human responsibility must be accompanied by professional responsibility.
In a regulated profession such as teaching, it is not enough to say, “I informed someone.” The critical question may ultimately be: “Did I obtain the required official permission?”
That distinction can be the difference between an authorised absence and a disciplinary offence.
The Teachers Service Commission Code of Regulations for Teachers establishes procedures governing teachers’ absence from duty and defines desertion as continuous absence from duty for 14 days or more without written authority. It also provides for compassionate leave under prescribed circumstances and procedures.
The regulations therefore exist not merely to punish errant employees but to provide a framework within which teachers and institutions can conduct themselves predictably and accountably.
Yet regulations only protect the professional who understands and follows them.
When informing is not the same as seeking permission
One of the most important distinctions teachers need to understand is the difference between notification and authorisation.
Calling a school administrator to explain that one cannot report to work is responsible communication. Sending a message may also be appropriate, particularly when an emergency occurs outside normal working hours.
But informing an administrator that you will be absent does not necessarily mean that the absence has been officially authorised.
Where the regulations require written permission, a teacher should make a formal application through the appropriate channel and obtain confirmation of approval.
This is particularly important because memories can differ, conversations can be misunderstood and electronic messages can be interpreted differently by different parties.
Documentation provides clarity.
A teacher should therefore cultivate the habit of asking: “Where is my written approval?”
Life does not always give employees the luxury of planning.
A parent can suddenly become critically ill. A spouse can be admitted to hospital. A child can face an emergency. Bereavement can occur without warning.
In such circumstances, nobody should lose sight of the human dimension of employment.
The TSC framework recognises compassionate circumstances and provides for compassionate leave subject to the applicable procedures.
The appropriate response, therefore, is neither to disregard the emergency nor to disregard professional procedure.
Where circumstances permit, the teacher should make the formal request before leaving. Where the emergency is so sudden that prior written application is genuinely impossible, the teacher should communicate with the relevant authority immediately and regularise the absence through the prescribed procedure as soon as practicable.
An emergency may explain an absence; proper procedure helps authorise it.
That is an important distinction.
There is another uncomfortable lesson here.
Sometimes long-serving employees become overly familiar with institutional procedures. After years in the same profession, one may begin to believe that experience, trust or a good service record will automatically shield them from administrative consequences.
It should not.
A teacher who has served for five, 10, 20 or 25 years remains subject to the applicable regulations.
Indeed, longevity should make a teacher more conscious of professional obligations, not less.
The fact that one has never previously faced disciplinary action does not mean that every future situation will be interpreted informally.
Rules remain rules.
The TSC Code should be read before trouble begins
The TSC Code of Regulations should not be treated as a document that becomes relevant only after an interdiction letter lands on a teacher’s desk.
It is part of the professional framework governing teachers.
The Code sets out expectations concerning attendance, leave, conduct, discipline and other aspects of service. It is therefore prudent for every teacher to understand the provisions that directly affect their employment.
This is particularly important for teachers who assume that the presence of a sympathetic administrator or a friendly colleague automatically regularises an absence.
It does not.
A colleague may willingly take over your lesson.
A deputy may understand your predicament.
A head of department may know where you are.
But none of these circumstances should be casually equated with formal authorisation where the regulations require it.
Teachers are employees and therefore operate within Kenya’s wider employment and labour-law framework. The Employment Act, 2007 provides for matters including leave and employee obligations, while teachers are additionally governed by the specialised regulatory framework established for the teaching service.
The prudent teacher should therefore avoid relying solely on hearsay about employment rights.
Statements such as “You are entitled to leave” may be correct in principle but incomplete in practice.
The more important questions are: What type of leave applies? Who should approve it? What procedure must be followed? What documentation is required? When should the application be made?
Knowing one’s rights is important.
Knowing one’s obligations is equally important.
Some teachers may regard written applications as unnecessary bureaucracy.
But documentation is not necessarily an obstacle. In many circumstances, it is a form of protection.
A written request establishes what was sought, when it was sought and from whom. Written approval establishes whether permission was actually granted.
This protects both the employee and the employer.
Consider the difference between saying: “I called and explained my situation,” and being able to produce: “Here is my written application, and here is the approval.”
The second position is considerably stronger when questions arise later.
A few simple professional habits can prevent serious problems.
A teacher who needs to be away should, as far as circumstances permit, make the request through the appropriate official channel, put the request in writing, clearly indicate the reason and expected period of absence, obtain written approval before leaving where possible and retain a copy of the application and approval.
The teacher should also provide supporting documentation where applicable, communicate promptly if an unforeseen emergency makes prior application impossible, regularise the absence as soon as reasonably possible and formally report back to duty when required.
These actions may appear mundane.
They are not.
They are career-protection measures.
TSC and administrators also have a responsibility
The responsibility should not rest entirely on individual teachers.
TSC and school management have an important role in ensuring that teachers understand the regulations governing their service.
Sensitisation should not be reserved for newly employed teachers.
Even experienced teachers need periodic reminders because regulations, administrative practices and official guidance can change.
Schools could incorporate short professional-compliance sessions into staff meetings and induction programmes. TSC county and sub-county offices could also strengthen periodic sensitisation on leave procedures, attendance, discipline and other frequently misunderstood areas.
Teacher unions can complement these efforts by educating members about both their rights and their professional obligations.
Prevention is better than litigation.
It is far better to explain a procedure to a teacher than to watch an avoidable misunderstanding develop into interdiction, dismissal and a lengthy legal battle.
The message should not be directed at teachers alone.
School administrators are often the first people teachers approach when emergencies arise.
A compassionate administrator should listen to the circumstances while simultaneously guiding the teacher towards the correct procedure.
If a teacher reports an emergency, the response should ideally combine humanity with administrative clarity:
“We understand your situation. Please make the appropriate application so that the absence can be properly authorised.”
This approach protects everyone.
It protects the teacher from inadvertently breaching regulations.
It protects the institution from administrative uncertainty.
And it reinforces a culture of professionalism.
The Ngeywa case is particularly sobering because of the length of service involved.
A professional can invest decades in education, build relationships with learners and colleagues, rise through the ranks and develop an impressive record of service. Yet one administrative lapse can place that career under severe strain.
That should concern every teacher.
The purpose of reflecting on such a case is not to prejudge the individual circumstances or to celebrate disciplinary action.
It is to ask a broader professional question: What can the rest of the teaching fraternity learn from it?
Perhaps the most important lesson is that professional competence includes administrative competence.
A teacher should know how to prepare a lesson.
A teacher should know how to assess learners.
A teacher should know how to manage a classroom.
But a teacher should also know how to seek leave, obtain permission, communicate an emergency and maintain proper records.
Ignorance can be expensive.
Teachers should resist the temptation to say, “I did not know.”
The more professionally responsible approach is to ask.
If you do not know the correct procedure, consult your administrator.
If you are uncertain about the applicable leave, seek clarification.
If you are unsure who has authority to approve your request, find out.
If an emergency occurs, communicate promptly and follow up formally.
It is better to ask a seemingly small question today than to answer a serious disciplinary allegation tomorrow.
The teaching profession requires sacrifice, empathy and commitment. But it also demands accountability.
A teacher can care for a sick parent and still follow the required procedure.
A teacher can respond to a family emergency and still protect their employment record.
A teacher can ask for help from colleagues without assuming that such assistance amounts to official permission.
The practical message is simple: If you need to be away from duty, seek official written permission.
Do not assume that a phone call is sufficient.
Do not assume that a text message is approval.
Do not assume that a colleague covering your lesson makes the absence authorised.
Do not assume that many years of faithful service will automatically excuse procedural lapses.
And above all, do not mistake a small administrative requirement for an insignificant one.
A formal request may take only a few minutes.
Obtaining written approval may appear routine.
Keeping a copy may seem unnecessary.
But when one’s employment is later questioned, those seemingly insignificant actions can become extremely important.
The recent court case should therefore prompt every teacher to revisit their professional habits.
The strongest employee is not simply the one who knows their rights. It is the one who understands both rights and responsibilities.
Professionalism is not demonstrated only in the classroom.
It is demonstrated in how we handle authority, documentation, accountability and the regulations governing our service.
After years of building a teaching career, no professional should allow avoidable ignorance or casualness over official permission to become the loose thread that unravels everything.
Ask. Apply. Obtain written approval. Keep the record.
It may seem like a small matter.
READ ALSO: The hidden wisdom of the Kisii traditional house in modern resilient architecture
But that small matter may be protecting your entire career.
By Astiba Kebon’go
Get more stories from our website: Education News
To write to us or offer feedback, you can reach us at: editor@educationnews.co.ke
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
