Republic v Kenya Wildlife Service & another [2016] KEELRC 987 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to block an employee's transfer because his contract allowed posting anywhere in Kenya and no serious violation was proven.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
He did not; the transfer was consistent with his contract of employment and no gross violation was shown
The Court examined the Applicant's employment letter, which required him to accept work in any KWS branch or station in Kenya, a term he signed on 21/12/2001. The Human Capital Policy transfer provisions were directory, not mandatory, and could be varied in exceptional circumstances. The Applicant reported to the new station, took leave and accepted a transfer allowance without contest. The Court therefore found no basis for interim judicial review relief.
Whether the transfer breached the Respondent's Human Capital Policy and Procedures Manual 2014
No breach; the November transfer timing provision was not mandatory
The Manual provided that transfers would ordinarily be effected in November, but clause (15) allowed the Director General or Deputy Director Human Capital to approve immediate transfers in exceptional cases of need. The Court read these provisions as being for the good order of the organization rather than mandatory terms capable of grounding a judicial review challenge.
Whether the Court should adjudicate the public law versus private law amenability argument raised by the Respondent
The Court declined to decide it at the interlocutory stage, leaving it for the main claim
The Respondent argued that the employment relationship was contractual and of a private nature, relying on Halsbury's Laws of England and case authority, and thus not amenable to judicial review. The Court held that the details of judicial review orders and the public/private distinction were matters to be determined in the main claim, confining itself at this stage to the prima facie case question.
Legal principles established
#- Courts should not interfere with internal arrangements between an employee and employer except where there are gross violations
- Internal transfer policy guidelines not couched in mandatory terms may be departed from in exceptional circumstances
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant to proceed with his transfer and duties immediately pending hearing and determination of the main claim
- 2.Costs of the application were not expressly addressed in the final orders
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 23(3)(f), 41 & 159(1) of the Constitution; Sections 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act; Order 53 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Kenya Wildlife Service & another [2016] KEELRC 987 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/987/eng@2016-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.