Lawrence Mwaura Njoroge v National Police Service Commission [2019] KEELRC 2564 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled police vetting decisions must only be signed by commissioners who actually heard the officer, nullifying this officer's removal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioner was accorded fair administrative action and fair hearing
No - although the vetting hearing itself proceeded with the Petitioner's participation, the review process and decision-making offended natural justice because Commissioners who never heard the Petitioner signed and ratified the decisions
The court examined the Hansard records and found the Petitioner appeared before a vetting panel of named Commissioners and co-opted members, was asked about objections to the panel, and explained his income and bank accounts. However, the vetting decision was signed by six Commissioners, not all of whom sat in the panel, and the review decision was signed by seven Commissioners while only three sat in the review, only one of whom had sat in the initial vetting panel. Deciding or ratifying a decision against a person unheard is contrary to Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act and rules of natural justice.
Whether the decision to remove the Petitioner was lawfully arrived at
No - the decision was not arrived at with due process and was declared null and void
Because the decision-making process breached natural justice by involving Commissioners who did not hear the Petitioner, the removal decision could not stand. The court relied on Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act and Article 47 of the Constitution, which guarantee administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair, and the right to be heard and given written reasons.
Legal principles established
#- A vetting or review decision ratified or signed by Commissioners who did not sit in the panel that heard the officer offends the rules of natural justice and is null and void
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the decision by the Respondent to declare the Petitioner unfit to serve in the police service was null and void
- 2.The Petitioner to be considered to have served in the police service successfully and to be retired accordingly in the normal course of service with effect from the date of the judgment
- 3.Petitioner entitled to all withheld salaries if any up to the date of retirement and all his pension dues
- 4.Respondent to pay costs of the Petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution; employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the ELRC
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lawrence Mwaura Njoroge v National Police Service Commission [2019] KEELRC 2564 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Petition 12 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2564/eng@2019-02-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.