Priscilla Wangui Mukundi & 10 Others v Kenya Prisons Service, Commissioner General of Prisons & Attorney General; Public Service Commission (Interested Party)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed 11 Prisons officers' claims to higher rank and Kshs. 26.4 million in arrears because their appointments lacked required Public Service Commission approval.
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 respondents have violated the constitutional rights of the petitioners through demotion, non-payment of salary and allowances arrears, and placement as Commissioners of Prisons.
- 2.Whether the respondents and the interested party have discriminated against the petitioners.
- 3.Whether the orders of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus sought should be issued.
Key legal issues
#Whether the petitioners' designation as Commissioners of Prisons was validly effected
No. The alleged harmonisation signal of 10 June 2024 was not backed by written approval, and the circular of 5 June 2024 harmonised grading structures without automatically promoting officers.
The court found the signal filed related to different matters of 25 February 2025, well after the alleged date. The PSC's 5 June 2024 circular merely harmonised the Prisons grading structure with the National Police Service and National Youth Service. Promotion and revision of terms require the PSC's written approval under Article 234; absent that, the claimed designation and benefits were not legally due.
Whether the respondents violated the petitioners' constitutional rights through demotion and non-payment
No. The claim was premised on rights not accrued from an illegality, and the arrears claim was unparticularised.
Since the initial appointment as Assistant Commissioners was issued without requisite PSC approval and was ultra vires, no legitimate expectation or accrued rights could arise. The Kshs. 26,433,000 claim was not disaggregated per petitioner as required by Rule 23 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, so a general claim could not suffice.
Whether the petitioners were discriminated against
No. The comparator could not apply and no CBA at shop floor level was demonstrated.
The discrimination claim rested on rights as Commissioner of Prisons which never accrued. The payment statements filed did not reflect unionisation or an active CBA at the shop floor to support agency fees, so the alleged selective treatment of officers recruited alongside them had no foundation.
Whether certiorari, prohibition and mandamus should issue
No. The orders sought could not issue as framed and the petition was dismissed.
Having found no accrued rights, no valid designation as Commissioners of Prisons, and an unparticularised arrears claim, the court held the orders could not issue as framed. Legitimate salary arrears, where due, should be assessed and paid administratively without a constitutional petition.
Legal principles established
#- Revision of terms, harmonisation, placement or promotion of public officers requires the Public Service Commission's written approval under Article 234 of the Constitution
- No rights or benefits can accrue from an illegality
- A general, unparticularised claim for salary arrears cannot suffice
- To apply a CBA at the shop floor, the basic terms and conditions of employment must be demonstrated
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is found without merit and dismissed.
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (constitutional petition in employment and labour relations)
Relief refused
#Declarations that the demotion and non-payment offended Articles 10, 27, 28, 41, 43 and 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act
No rights accrue from an illegality; the claim was premised on rights not accrued as Commissioner of Prisons
Mandatory injunction for payment of Kshs. 26,433,000 in salary and allowance arrears
Claim not disaggregated or particularised to each petitioner as required under Rule 23 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules
Certiorari to quash the demotion decision
Orders sought cannot be issued as framed; petition dismissed
Prohibition against reduction of salaries and reference below rank of Commissioner of Prisons
Petitioners never lawfully held the rank; harmonisation circular did not amount to automatic promotion
Mandamus to reinstate rank of Commissioner of Prisons (Job Group P) and pay allowances per SRC 2022 Scale
Promotion and revision of terms require the Interested Party's written approval under Article 234; none was shown
Costs of the petition
Employment relationship subsists; each party to bear own costs
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs.
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.
Any revision of terms, harmonisation, and placement or promotion must be with the Interested Party's written approval.
No rights or benefits can accrue from an illegality.
Without the Interested Party's written approval for any promotions or changes to the terms and conditions of service for the petitioners as public officers, any other office undertaking such mandate is unconstitutional.
Accordingly, the orders sought cannot be issued as framed. The Court finds the petition without merit and hereby dismissed. As the employment relationship subsists, each party shall bear its costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment delivered 30 September 2026 in a petition filed as No. E094 of 2025; date appears anomalous
Court cites a decision dated 2026, the same year as delivery, in a 2025-filed petition
Holding refers to 'Commissioner of Police' instead of 'Commissioner of Prisons'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Priscilla Wangui Mukundi & 10 Others v Kenya Prisons Service, Commissioner General of Prisons & Attorney General; Public Service Commission (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition No. E094 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2686/eng@2026-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.