Kisa & another v National Police Service Commission & 3 others (Cause E931 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1601 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that dismissed police officers' claim was on time because they never received their dismissal letters, but awarded only their pension benefits.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is time-barred under Section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitations Act
The suit is not time-barred because the cause of action accrued only when the Claimants became aware of their dismissal, which the Respondents failed to prove occurred.
Under Section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitations Act, contract claims against Government must be filed within three years. The cause of action arises when an employee is notified of termination. The Respondents only proved transmission of dismissal letters to the Claimants' commanders while the Claimants were in prison; no evidence showed the letters reached the Claimants. Dismissal therefore took effect on the date of awareness, not the dates on the letters.
Whether the dismissal was unfair and unlawful
The dismissal was substantively reasonable and justified given the murder conviction, but procedurally flawed because the Claimants were not accorded notice, hearing or appeal rights.
Applying the 'reasonable responses test' from British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift, a reasonable employer would have dismissed officers convicted of murder and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment; the substantive reasons were therefore justified. However, Section 89(3) and (4) of the National Police Service Act and Article 47 required notice, hearing and appeal; RW1 admitted the Claimants were dismissed without an opportunity to be heard, rendering the dismissal procedurally inconsistent with the Act.
Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought
Declaratory reliefs, reinstatement, mandamus and salary claims were declined; only accrued pension benefits were awarded.
Having found the dismissal substantively justified, the declaratory reliefs and reinstatement failed, reinstatement being contrary to public policy. Salary from 2011 was refused because the Claimants were imprisoned and rendered no service, and Section 18(6) of the Employment Act bars wages for periods of detention or imprisonment. Nominal damages for the procedural lapse could not be granted absent a pleading. The only available remedy was processing of accrued pension benefits.
Legal principles established
#- In employment disputes, a cause of action arises when the employee is notified of the termination; limitation does not run before notification.
- Termination of employment does not take effect until the letter of dismissal is in the hands of the employee and cannot be retroactive.
- Disciplinary action against police officers must comply with Section 89 of the National Police Service Act and Article 47 of the Constitution, including notice and opportunity to be heard.
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Respondent is directed to process the pension benefits accruing to the Claimants
- 2.Each party shall bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (statute not expressly cited in the excerpt)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kisa & another v National Police Service Commission & 3 others (Cause E931 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1601 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E931 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1601/eng@2025-05-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.