Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 2nd January 2018 (Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nairobi)· [2019] KEELRC 2410 (KLR)

Fredrick J. Mugambi v Inspector General, National Police Service & 3 others [2019] KEELRC 2410 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 January 2019
2,776 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan police employee who lost his salary kept his pay protection after the court confirmed interim orders until his employment dispute is fully heard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Fredrick Mugambi, a human resource officer with over 30 years in the civil service, moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court by Notice of Motion dated 2nd January 2018 seeking interim relief during the vacation period. He complained that after his secondment to the National Police Service Commission expired and he was released back to the Kenya Police Service, the Deputy Inspector General of the Kenya Police Service refused to deploy him, removed his name from the salary payroll from September 2017, and transferred him to the State Department of Broadcasting and Telecommunications. The Chairman of the National Police Service Commission had revoked that transfer and directed the Inspector General to deploy him within the Police Service, but this was not implemented and his salary was not restored in full. The Respondents disputed his case: the Public Service Commission's deponent maintained the Claimant was employed by the Commission and never by the National Police Service, while the Commission's Chairman averred the Claimant remained validly its employee and could not be transferred without its authority under Article 246(3). The parties also disputed the locus standi of the deponents and the mandate to absorb or delink civilian staff. Considering the averments, Lady Justice Hellen Wasilwa declined to determine the substantive dispute at the interlocutory stage, noting the orders sought mirrored those in the main claim. On 29th January 2019 she confirmed the interim orders earlier issued by J. Onyango, directed the parties to set the case down for hearing on a priority basis, and awarded costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Interim protection of the Claimant's salary pending full hearing

Holding

The interim orders reinstating the Claimant to the payroll were confirmed pending hearing and determination of the claim.

Reasoning

The court observed that the orders sought in the application were similar to those sought in the main claim, and to avoid determining the claim without hearing the parties, it confirmed the interim orders earlier issued by J. Onyango and directed that the case be set down for hearing on a priority basis.

p. 4
02

Who between the Public Service Commission/Ministry and the National Police Service Commission has capacity to deploy the Claimant

Holding

Not determined at this interlocutory stage; canvassed by the parties with the 3rd Respondent asserting exclusive mandate under Article 246(3) and the 1st and 2nd Respondents asserting the Claimant remained an employee of the Public Service Commission.

Reasoning

The Claimant argued he became a member of the National Police Service under Section 7(1) of the National Police Service Act, which includes civilian staff. The 3rd Respondent relied on Article 246(3) and the Transfer and Deployment Regulations 2015. The 1st and 2nd Respondents contended the Claimant was employed and seconded by the Public Service Commission. The court reserved these questions for the full hearing.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where interim orders sought in an application mirror relief in the main claim, the court may confirm interim orders without determining the substantive claim

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Confirmation of the interim orders given by J. Onyango pending the hearing and determination of the claim
  2. 2.Parties to set down the case for hearing on priority basis
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 234(3)(c)(iv)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 246(3)
  • Employment & Labour ActSections 12 and 16
  • Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010Rule 32
  • Court Vacation RulesRule 3
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A
  • National Police Service Act, 2011Sections 2 and 7(1)
  • National Police Service Commission ActSections 10(1)(b), (e) and 28
  • Transfer and Deployment Regulations 2015Regulation 4

Cases cited (3)

  • Joel Okero Makori v National Police Service Commission & Others
    Petition No. 75 of 2015
  • Republic v Deputy Inspector General of National Police & 32 others
    [2013] eKLR
  • International Centre For Policy and Conflict v Attorney General & 2 others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159 of the Constitution; Sections 12 and 16 of the Employment & Labour Act; Rule 32 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010; Order 40 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Fredrick J. Mugambi v Inspector General, National Police Service & 3 others [2019] KEELRC 2410 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion dated 2nd January 2018 (Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2410/eng@2019-01-29

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.