Henry Thuranira Ruuti & 2 others v National Police Service & 3 others [2020] KEELRC 668 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that police officers cleared by a disciplinary tribunal cannot be retried and fired over the same allegations.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether multiple disciplinary hearings over the same matter are permissible
The court held that an employee who has been acquitted of disciplinary charges cannot be subjected to further disciplinary proceedings on the same facts; the Standing Orders do not contemplate a retrial
The court accepted the Petitioners' argument that after acquittal by the first disciplinary tribunal, the second proceedings were geared only towards removal. The Standing Orders were held not to contemplate retrial over the same facts, and sanctions must be imposed at once rather than in successive proceedings. The second tribunal's purpose was found to be the removal of the officers.
Whether the removal without a hearing breached Articles 41, 47 and 50
The removal letters were declared null and void for breach of Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution
The Petitioners replied to the notice to show cause dated 6th November 2019 but received no further communication and were not invited to a hearing before removal. The court found the removal to violate the rights to fair labour practices, fair administrative action and a fair hearing, and quashed the removal letters by certiorari.
Whether the double jeopardy doctrine applies to disciplinary proceedings
The Respondent argued (relying on Jeremiah Gitau Kiereini) that double jeopardy applies only to criminal trials, but the court nonetheless held on the Standing Orders and fair hearing grounds that the successive proceedings were unlawful
The Respondent relied on authority that disciplinary proceedings are administrative, not criminal, and cannot attract the double jeopardy doctrine. The court did not decide the constitutional double jeopardy question on those terms; instead it rested on the Service Standing Orders, which do not contemplate retrial over the same facts, and on the unfairness of successive hearings aimed at a predetermined outcome.
Legal principles established
#- An employer cannot re-charge and punish an employee through successive disciplinary tribunals over the same facts once a first tribunal has discharged the employee
- Sanctions under the Service Standing Orders are to be imposed at once, not through successive retrials over the same facts
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the removal letters dated 27th March 2020 breach the Petitioners' rights under Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution and are null and void
- 2.An order of certiorari quashing the letter dated 27th March 2020 and reinstating the Petitioners if already removed from the service
- 3.An order prohibiting the Respondents from initiating any further disciplinary action against the Petitioners based on the same facts
- 4.Each party to bear their own costs as the employment relationship continues
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional petition jurisdiction - enforcement of Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution (Bill of Rights)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Henry Thuranira Ruuti & 2 others v National Police Service & 3 others [2020] KEELRC 668 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/668/eng@2020-07-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.