Evans Muriuki Muthuri & 4 others v National Police Service Commission & 2 others [2019] KEELRC 1665 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that graduate police constables must be paid Inspector-level (Job Group J) salaries under an established legitimate expectation policy.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1995 letter and 2018 press statement constitute a binding policy on graduate constable pay
The press statement sets out the 1st respondent's prevailing policy on graduate constables, substantially similar to the 1995 letter, applying to all constables whether the degree was acquired before or after joining the Service; the petitioners are entitled to benefit from it
The respondents did not deny paragraph 32 of the supporting affidavit. The unchallenged press statement by the NPSC Chairperson confirmed payment of special salaries to graduate constables was legally protected and provided for in policy guidelines. The Court found the regulations and guidelines did not extinguish this policy, and that the policy stood on equal footing with the guidelines and regulations as promulgations of the same body.
Whether the petitioners established a legitimate expectation
Yes - the petitioners established a legitimate expectation to emplacement on the Inspector of Police pay level (Job Group J) and to training towards substantive promotion to Inspector
Applying the Halsbury's definition of legitimate expectation as cited in Kalpana H. Rawal v JSC, the Court found an express, clear and unambiguous promise in the 1995 letter confirmed by the 2018 press statement; the expectation was reasonable; the 1st respondent was competent to make it; and the promise did not contravene any statute or the Constitution.
Whether the emplacement practice violated constitutional provisions
Violations were established only under Articles 47 and 41(1) and (2)(a) and (b); Articles 27, 28, 40 and 43 violations were not established
The exhibited payslips showed large, unexplained variances in pay and designation among similarly situated officers, demonstrating arbitrary and unreasonable application of the graduate constable pay group long after the 2015 Regulations and 2016 Guidelines. However, no material established discrimination on Article 27(4) grounds or violations of Articles 28, 40 and 43.
Whether the Teachers Service Commission v KNUT authority applied
It was misconceived for the 1st respondent to rely on that authority because this petition concerned application of an already approved pay level, not setting or determining salaries
The Court of Appeal in TSC v KNUT held the SRC advisory mandatory where new teachers' salaries had to be set or determined. Here the petition concerned the application of a pay level already approved and applied in the Service, so the authority was inapposite.
Legal principles established
#- A policy or promise by a public authority, whether by letter or press statement, can ground a legitimate expectation entitling officers to a pay emplacement, protected on the basis of fairness, predictability and certainty
- An unexplained, selective and arbitrary application of a pay emplacement policy violates Articles 41 (fair labour practices and fair remuneration) and 47 (fair administrative action)
- No one can claim to benefit from an illegality merely because others have benefited from it
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the respondents' conduct amounts to denial, violation, infringement and/or threat to the fundamental rights of Graduate Constable Officers under Articles 41(1) and (2)(a) and (b), and 47 of the Constitution
- 2.Declaration that Graduate Police Officers on a salary scale below Job Group J and similarly qualified as Graduate Police Officers in Job Group J are entitled to be emplaced to pay scale of graduate constables equivalent to pay of an Inspector of Police Job Group J, per the 1st respondent's prevailing policy as clarified in the Chairperson's press release of 19.03.2018
- 3.Order of Mandamus directed at the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay all graduate constables salaries equivalent to pay of an Inspector of Police Job Group J per the prevailing policy as clarified in the press release of 19.03.2018
- 4.Respondents to pay costs of the petition for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th petitioners
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 41, 47 and related fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (employment and labour relations jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Nehemiah Kipkorir Terer & 3 others v National Police Service Commission & 2 others [2021] KEELRC 53 (KLR)[2021] KEELRC 53 (KLR)14 Dec 2021
- Nehemiah Kipkorir Terer & 3 others v National Police Service Commission & 2 others [2021] KEELRC 1351 (KLR)[2021] KEELRC 1351 (KLR)29 Jun 2021
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Evans Muriuki Muthuri & 4 others v National Police Service Commission & 2 others [2019] KEELRC 1665 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Petition No 122 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1665/eng@2019-05-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.