Nkanda v National Police Service Commission & 2 others (Petition E001 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2383 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a police officer's contempt case, ruling that new job transfers must be challenged through a fresh lawsuit, not a concluded one.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether the application herein should be allowed as prayed
Key legal issues
#Whether subsequent deployments/transfers of the petitioner after the 26th July 2021 judgment constituted contempt of that decree
No - the judgment quashed only the specific transfer to Kizingitini and directed fair treatment; new deployments are new causes of action, not contempt
The court construed the 2021 judgment as quashing the specific Magumu-to-Kizingitini transfer and declaring frequent deployments a breach of Articles 27 and 47, effectively directing the respondents to act fairly. It did not bar future transfers. The petitioner selectively enforced the decree, remaining silent on some transfers while protesting others, and new deployments post-settlement required a fresh suit, not contempt proceedings in a closed file.
Whether the court retained jurisdiction over the concluded petition
The court is functus officio; the petition had been determined and later marked settled at counsel's request
After judgment on 26th July 2021, the petitioner accepted transfers to Kamulu and other stations without protest, and on 2nd October 2024 his counsel informed the court that the matter had been resolved following a change of leadership in the National Police Service and asked for the file to be marked settled, which the court did. The court therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain further contempt claims in the same file.
Fairness of frequent transfers of police officers
Frequent movement of an officer from one station is an unfair labour practice, but the officer must show willingness to serve anywhere in the country
While reaffirming its view that frequent transfers amount to unfair labour practice, the court criticised the petitioner's selective enforcement - he protested only transfers to distant stations (Kacheliba, Maganda) while accepting others (Kamulu, Mai Mahiu). An officer must demonstrate willingness to serve in every corner of the country; the 2021 orders were expressly not an immunity from employment rules and normal work relations.
Legal principles established
#- A closed, concluded suit cannot be used to ventilate new alleged violations through contempt applications; fresh violations require a fresh suit, as litigation must have a start and an end.
- Once a matter has been determined and counsel has had it marked as settled, the court becomes functus officio.
- The 2021 judgment did not confer immunity from future transfers or normal work relations on the petitioner.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2024
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondents (dismissal with costs)
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act and sections 12 and 13 of the ELRC Act (contempt jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Suspension/vacation of the deployment from Mai Mahiu to Maganda Police Station and prohibition of interference with the petitioner's duties
New deployments constitute a new cause of action that cannot be brought into the closed file; the court is functus officio and the matter was marked settled on 2nd October 2024
Committal of the 3rd respondent to civil jail for up to six months for contempt of the decree of 26th July 2021
The 2021 judgment granted no immunity from future transfers; the motion had no merit
Costs
The Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2024 dismissed with costs (costs awarded against the petitioner).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Consequently, I find no merits in the Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2024 and dismiss it with costs.
Litigation must have start and an end. They cannot be entertained externally through contempt applications instead of filing fresh suits to address new violations.
By now it must be clear that, the court is functus oficio in the petition herein since the petitioner accepted transfer to Kamulu and other stations and on 2nd October 2024 his counsel asked the court to mark the matter as settled.
the court clarified in the judgment that the petitioner was not granted immunity from rules and regulation of his employment and therefore the respondent had the liberty to deal with petitioner and efiect on him normal work relations.
Issues in the judgment
#Date of the 1st respondent's Replying Affidavit is stated as 22nd January 2024, which precedes the motion dated 18th December 2024 it opposes; likely a typographical error for 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nkanda v National Police Service Commission & 2 others (Petition E001 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2383 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2383/eng@2025-08-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.