The Employment and Labour Relations Court has served up a cautionary tale about how one lawyer’s side hustle turned into a courtroom headline.
Eurry Mabonga, a Senior Legal Officer at the Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC), found himself in hot water after the State corporation discovered that he had quietly registered Mabonga & Company Advocates in July 2020, while still on its payroll. AFC accused him of double dipping: earning a public salary while running a private firm on the side, in breach of the Public Officer Ethics Act and the conditions of the non-practice allowance, a benefit meant for advocates who renounce private practice to serve exclusively in the public sector.
The revelations didn’t stop there. AFC investigators scoured his work laptop and reportedly uncovered draft legal documents, including a Kshs. 7.5 million professional undertaking for an external firm. To AFC, this was proof he was running his own chambers during office hours. Mabonga denied it, saying his firm only handled AFC’s cases, but the optics weren’t great.
The court’s judgment was a mix of sting and sympathy and both sides had a little to lose and a lot to learn. The court noted that AFC’s case had merit: there were signs of professional negligence and questionable loyalty that had exposed the corporation to losses. Yet, the judge took issue with how AFC handled the dismissal, describing its disciplinary process as “a mere formality.” The corporation, the court said, had skipped crucial procedural steps, failing to give Mabonga adequate notice and withholding documents he needed to defend himself.
In short, the reasons were sound, but the process was flawed. Under Section 41 of the Employment Act, employers must ensure fairness and transparency before terminating employment. AFC didn’t.
The ruling declared Mabonga’s termination unlawful, awarding him KSh 3.3 million, which included KSh 2.6 million in unpaid non-practice allowance for 88 months, plus interest and legal costs. The court stopped short of reinstating him, recognizing AFC’s right to dismiss him for cause, but only if done properly.
Beyond the numbers, the case highlights a wider ethical dilemma within Kenya’s public service: how to balance professional ambition with the integrity demanded of public office. The non-practice allowance was designed to prevent precisely this conflict, to ensure public legal officers remain focused on state business rather than private gain. Mabonga’s case shows how quickly those boundaries can blur, and how costly it can be when they do.
Bottom line
Even when the misconduct seems clear cut, skipping due process can turn a justified termination into an expensive mistake. For public servants, the message is equally sharp, when you sign up for exclusive service, side hustles aren’t just frowned upon; they can end your career. Mabonga’s experiment in double duty may have failed, but it leaves a lingering lesson about loyalty, law, and limits.
