Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition dated 6th July 2023· [2024] KEELRC 2128 (KLR)

Njue v National Police Service Commission & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E137 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2128 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 July 2024
3,304 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that police transfers are employer decisions it will rarely overturn, and dismissed an officer's challenge for lack of evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, a police officer employed by the National Police Service since 2006, petitioned the court claiming that his transfer on 29/4/2023 from Mlolongo to Kathwana Police Station, Tharaka Nithi County, was punitive, unfair and unconstitutional. He relied on two on-duty road traffic accidents (2010 and 2019) that left him with serious back injuries requiring treatment at Kenyatta National Hospital and Komarock Modern Hospital, an internal complaint against his supervisors, his alleged unlawful detention in March 2023, and the premature birth of triplets on 26/4/2023 for which he sought paternity leave. He alleged violation of his right to fair labour practices under Article 41 and breach of Regulation 3(2) of the National Police Service Commission (Transfer & Deployment) Regulations 2015, and complained of non-payment of salary since July 2023. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents countered that deployment was a lawful exercise of the Inspector General's mandate under section 10(1)(g) of the National Police Service Act and the 2015 Regulations; that medical grounds do not entitle an officer to a specific station; that the Petitioner bypassed internal review mechanisms; and that his paternity leave request was unsupported and non-compliant with Chapter 48 of the Service Standing Orders. The court framed one issue: whether the Petitioner's Article 41 right had been violated. Applying the Anarita Karimi Njeru precision rule, the burden of proof under sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act, and the Geoffery Mworia principle of judicial restraint over employer human resource functions, the court found the deployment lawful, the medical objection unsupported, and no correlation between the redeployment and the births. The petition was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the transfer/deployment of the Petitioner to Kathwana Police Station violated his right to fair labour practices under Article 41

Holding

No violation proved. The deployment was carried out within the Inspector General's statutory mandate and the Petitioner failed to prove inability to access medical care at the new station or that the transfer was a punitive sanction

Reasoning

The deployment was made pursuant to section 10(1)(g) of the National Police Service Act and the Transfer & Deployment Regulations 2015. Courts will sparingly interfere with an employer's human resource functions unless the employer acts unconstitutionally, unlawfully or manifestly unfairly. The Petitioner annexed no documents supporting a medical impediment to the transfer, so the allegation of an unfair, retaliatory transfer was unsupported and not upheld.

p. 6
02

Whether denial of paternity leave breached the Petitioner's rights

Holding

No. The redeployment statement preceded the birth of the triplets and the Petitioner failed to prove his application complied with Chapter 48 of the Service Standing Orders

Reasoning

The birth notification showed the triplets were born on 26/4/2023, while the redeployment statement was issued on 25/4/2023, so there was no correlation between the two events. The Petitioner also did not prove that his paternity leave application included the birth notifications required under Chapter 48 of the Service Standing Orders, hence no denial of rights was established.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A party alleging constitutional violation must state with reasonable precision the Articles violated and the manner of infringement
  • Courts will very sparingly interfere with an employer's human resource functions such as transfers
  • He who alleges must prove; the burden of proof lies on the petitioner
  • Medical grounds do not entitle an officer to serve at a specific station for the duration of employment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The prayers in the petition dated 6th July 2023 are not merited and are therefore not granted
  2. 2.Each party will meet the costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 41
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159
  • National Police Service Commission (Transfer & Deployment) Regulations, 2015Sections 2, 3(2), 8, 8(2), 8(3)
  • National Police Service ActSection 10(1)(g)
  • National Police Service Commission ActSection 10(1)(k)
  • Evidence ActSections 107, 108, 109
  • Service Standing OrdersChapter 48 (Leave), paragraphs 6(2)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSections 3A, 3B
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1

Cases cited (11)

  • Augustine Gakure Monyo v County Government of Murang'a
    [2016] eKLR
  • Anarita Karimi Njeri –V- R
    (1979) KLR 154
  • Koinange –V- A.G
    (2007) 2 EA 256
  • The Attorney General –V- Butambala
    (1992) LRC 496
  • Matiba –V- Attorney General
    (1990) KLR 666
  • Mumo Matemu –V- Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others
    Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2012 (2012) eKLR
  • Stephen Nyarangi Onsuma & Another –V- George Magoha & 7 others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Peter Muneria Ole Muya –v- Principal Magistrate Narok & 6 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Samson Otieno Bala t/a Nissan Enterprises –v- Kenya Bureau of Standards & 4 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Fazleabbas Mohammed Chandoo –V- A. I. Hussein – Kadhi, Kadhis' Court & 4 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Geoffery Mworia vs Water Resources Management Authority and 2 Others
    (2015) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 41, 48 and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya (fair labour practices; ELRC jurisdiction over National Police Service employment dispute)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njue v National Police Service Commission & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E137 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2128 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Petition dated 6th July 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2128/eng@2024-07-26

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