Republic v Inspector General of Police & 3 others; Samanda (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review E018 of 2023) (27 February 2025) (Interim Judgment) [2025] KEELRC 668 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court quashed a police officer's suspension after finding it was gender-based harassment and awarded her full back pay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents' conduct amounted to unlawful and unfair administrative action
The court found that the suspension and orderly proceedings violated Articles 27, 28 and 47 of the Constitution and sections 88(2), 89 and 90 of the National Police Service Act
The court found that the Officer Commanding Diplomatic Police Station's conduct, including the intrusive incident and the convening of orderly room proceedings without notice, amounted to gross gender-based harassment. This violated the Applicant's human dignity under Article 28, equality under Article 27, and fair administrative action under Article 47 read with section 4 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, 2015, as well as the National Police Service Act and Police Regulations.
Whether the Applicant proved her case to warrant the prerogative orders
The Applicant proved the matters placed before the court on a balance of probability and the application was granted in full
Weighing the Applicant's depositions against the Respondents' replying affidavit alleging absence from duty, the court found the Applicant had discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probability. The suspension without salary and without adherence to the laid-down procedure for suspension was unlawful, justifying certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with the court additionally reporting the 3rd Respondent's conduct to the Inspector General.
Legal principles established
#- Disciplinary action against a police officer founded on gender-based harassment violates constitutional rights to dignity, equality and fair administrative action, and such administrative action must follow the National Police Service Act and the Service Standing Orders.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of Certiorari quashing the suspension letter dated 18th May 2023 and all the orderly proceedings conducted against the ex-parte Applicant by the 3rd Respondent leading to her suspension
- 2.An order of prohibition barring the Respondents from revisiting matters raised in the application or victimizing and/or harassing the ex-parte Applicant
- 3.An order of Mandamus compelling the Respondents to release the Applicant's full salary from date of suspension till payment in full
- 4.The attention of the Inspector General of Police drawn to the conduct of the 3rd Respondent for his attention and action
- 5.Payment in respect of the salary with interest at court rates from the date of suspension till payment in full
- 6.The Respondents to pay the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court; constitutional provisions Articles 27, 28 and 47 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Inspector General of Police & 3 others; Samanda (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review E018 of 2023) (27 February 2025) (Interim Judgment) [2025] KEELRC 668 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review E018 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/668/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.