Stephen Kemei Kiptum, Emmanuel Kenga Karisa & Peter Mwau Muinde v National Police Service Commission [2016] KEELRC 1506 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Three Kenyan police officers removed after vetting won orders keeping their jobs, salaries and housing until the court fully hears their case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Right of access to information under Article 35
Prayer 6 refused because the Respondent had already supplied the decisions, reasons, minutes and verbatim vetting records; the missing verbatim Commission deliberations do not unduly hinder the petition
The court examined the documents attached to the Respondent's affidavits, including communications of 7th January 2015 containing decisions and reasons, minutes of the Commission's Board meeting of 18th December 2014, and verbatim vetting review records subsequently supplied. It concluded the Petitioners had sufficient material to prosecute the petition, and any inference from missing deliberations could be drawn at the substantive hearing.
Confirmation of conservatory orders pending petition
Confirmed: serious issues to be investigated, potential irreparable harm given limitations on damages, and balance of convenience favouring the Petitioners after long service exceeding 20 years
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found arguable issues as in American Cyanamid. It weighed public interest in removing unsuitable officers against the Petitioners' likelihood of never being reinstated and suffering unpaid salaries, considered statutory and common law limits on damages, and, noting over 20 years' service each, found it just to grant the conservatory orders in prayers 3 and 5.
Contradiction in the record for the 3rd Petitioner
The court noted the review record shows the 3rd Petitioner's review was allowed with re-vetting recommended, yet he received a letter of dismissal
The court recorded that the 3rd Petitioner's review application was allowed and re-vetting recommended, but he received a letter indicating dismissal contrary to the record. This discrepancy was not resolved at the interlocutory stage but informs the serious issues to be tried.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella conditions govern the grant of interlocutory relief, including conservatory orders
- In removal-from-service cases, public interest is balanced against the private interest of removed officers unlikely to be reinstated
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent is injuncted from implementing the decisions dated 22nd May 2014 and 7th January 2015 removing the Petitioners/Applicants from office pending the hearing and determination of the petition
- 2.The Petitioners' monthly salaries and allowances continue to be paid pending the hearing and determination of the petition
- 3.The Respondent is prohibited from evicting or ejecting the 1st Petitioner from house No.2 West Park Estate, Lang'ata, police housing, pending the hearing and determination of the petition
- 4.Prayer 6 for further documentation refused; the Respondent held to have already provided sufficient documentation
- 5.The petition to be fast-tracked and set down for hearing before any judge of the court by the Registrar
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Matter transferred from the High Court by Lenaola J who determined the High Court lacked jurisdiction, it being an Employment and Labour Relations dispute
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stephen Kemei Kiptum, Emmanuel Kenga Karisa & Peter Mwau Muinde v National Police Service Commission [2016] KEELRC 1506 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 28th January 2015 within a Petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1506/eng@2016-03-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.