A senior legal officer was sacked for running a private law firm while employed by the State-owned Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC), court papers show, turning the spotlight on moonlighting in the public sector.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court found that Eurry Mabonga, who worked at AFC from April 2013 to January 2025, registered Mabonga and Company Advocates in July 2020 while still at the corporation. During his 12-year stint, he was never promoted and was not paid a non-practice allowance, the judgment notes.
In the public service, a non-practice allowance is payable to professionals who relinquish private practice to serve exclusively in the public sector.
Mr Mabonga was terminated in January 2025. AFC accused him of breaching fiduciary duties under the Public Officer Ethics Act by engaging in private practice and exposing the institution to legal risk. To buttress its case, AFC produced a certificate of registration and a firm profile for Mabonga and Co. Advocates. The corporation also accused him of gross negligence in handling court matters.
Evidence presented showed Mr Mabonga’s work laptop contained draft legal documents, including a Sh7.5 million professional undertaking for an external firm. AFC argued this proved he was managing a private practice during work hours, a claim Mr Mabonga denied, insisting his firm handled AFC-related cases.
Court’s ruling
The court held that Mr Mabonga’s alleged cumulative negligence in court cases, exposing AFC to losses, justified termination. However, it declared the dismissal unlawful for failure to follow due process, including denying him access to crucial documents and allowing an investigator to sit on the disciplinary panel.
The corporation’s IT officer, who extracted evidence from Mr Mabonga’s laptop, sat on the disciplinary committee, breaching AFC’s HR policy.
A witness testified that analysis of the confiscated laptop uncovered unauthorised professional undertakings for third parties, including loan facilities and a land transaction. Mr Mabonga denied the allegations.
The court found AFC breached Mr Mabonga’s rights by withholding evidence. He was denied access to critical documents before the hearing, undermining his defence.
The court faulted the disciplinary process, stating it ‘was a mere formality’, declaring the termination unlawful under Section 41 of the Employment Act.
Professional negligence
At the same time, the court agreed that AFC had valid reasons for termination, citing alleged negligence, including a Sh316,515 loss from a salary dispute. It noted a pattern of professional negligence, such as failure to file defences in a magistrate’s court matter, leading to a Sh30,000 costs award against AFC, and the dismissal of two debt-recovery suits for inaction, costing AFC Sh807,041.
AFC also accused him of signing loan documents without authority, though the court found insufficient proof of forgery.
The judge observed that while individual lapses might not warrant dismissal, their cumulative effect undermined AFC’s legal interests, satisfying Section 45 of the Employment Act.
Problematic practice
Still, the private-practice issue-though ethically problematic-was not included in the termination charges.
‘The disciplinary process was a procedural mockery,’ the court observed, citing breaches of natural justice.
In his claim, Mr Mabonga admitted registering the firm but said it was not concealed and benefited AFC, asserting all filings were on the corporation’s behalf.
The court stated: ‘However, the claimant did not produce any pleadings filed for the respondent (AFC) through the firm. Even if such filings existed, it is unclear how filing the pleadings under the firm was beneficial to the respondent, seeing that there is no indication nor even a suggestion that the respondent was unable to file pleadings in its own name.’
AFC was ordered to pay Sh3.3 million plus interest and Mr Mabonga’s legal costs. The award includes Sh2.6 million in non-practice allowance for 88 months (April 2013 to July 2020, when he registered the firm) at Sh30,000 per month.
The court dismissed his claim for Sh1.7 million in salary disparities, finding no evidence that he performed the duties of a head of department.
Costlier mistake
While the court accepted that ‘Public officers must avoid conflicts of interest, but employers must follow due process,’ it concluded that AFC’s procedural missteps rendered the dismissal unlawful-making the flawed process, rather than the alleged misconduct, the costlier mistake.
Mr Mabonga described himself as well-educated and said he leveraged his skills to deliver favourable judgments that saved AFC over Sh3.5 billion in direct costs. He also claimed stagnation, alleging junior and inexperienced staff were promoted over him, leaving him with heavier workloads and lower pay.