Chepkonga v National Police Service Commission (Petition E010 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 980 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld a police officer's dismissal, ruling employers may fire staff whose conduct endangers others, even after partial procedural missteps.
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 petitioner was denied the right to fair administrative action
- 2.Whether the petitioner was denied the right to a fair hearing
- 3.Whether the petitioner was unfairly and unlawfully dismissed from service
- 4.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the remedies he is seeking
Key legal issues
#Whether the petitioner was denied fair administrative action and a fair hearing
No violation established; the second disciplinary process was conducted procedurally and the petitioner pleaded guilty to all counts
The court found the petitioner was subjected to two disciplinary processes. The 2017 proceedings were conducted with witnesses whom he cross-examined and he pleaded guilty; his previous conviction was taken into account in sentencing. The court did not accept the contention that the 2013 proceedings, conducted partly in his absence and delayed in forwarding, rendered the ultimate dismissal unlawful given the ratification role of the Commission.
Whether the dismissal from the National Police Service was unfair and unlawful
Dismissal was justified; the petitioner's conduct was inconsistent with that of a disciplined officer
Applying the reasonable employer test, the court held that the petitioner's failure to disarm a constable who discharged a bullet killing a member of the public, and subsequent offences including being drunk on duty and discharging ammunition without orders, posed risks to the public, fellow officers and himself. Dismissal was proportionate and the court declined to interfere with the Commission's decision.
Legal principles established
#- In a claim for unfair termination of employment, the Court applies the test of a reasonable employer and will not interfere where dismissal is a proportionate disciplinary measure
- Employment contracts are contracts for personal service founded on mutual trust, confidence and good faith
- Courts will only interfere with an employer's exercise of disciplinary control where the process is flawed or there was a breach of the law
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 10(1) and (2), 47(1)(2), 48, 50 and 246(3)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya; Fair Administrative Action Act; National Police Service Act
Relief refused
#Declaratory order that the petitioner's fundamental rights and freedoms were violated
Court found valid and justifiable reasons for dismissal and no violation established
Order of certiorari to quash the proceedings and decision of the respondent
Petitioner did not demonstrate excess or lack of authority by the respondent
Reinstatement to the Administrative Police Service at the rank of corporal
Dismissal found justified; petitioner's conduct inconsistent with that of a disciplined officer
Compensation, interest and any other suitable orders
Petition dismissed as without merit
Costs
The petition is dismissed with costs to the respondent
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.
In a claim for unfair termination of employment, the Court usually applies the test of a “reasonable employer”
He posed a risk not only to the public he was meant to serve but also to other oficers working with him and a risk to himself through reckless use of firearm entrusted to him for the discharge of his duties.
The Petition is therefore found without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment does not state the petition case number; the disposition is undated in part and the coram records no counsel appearing
Judgment refers to the petitioner variously as petitioner and claimant in the concluding analysis
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chepkonga v National Police Service Commission (Petition E010 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 980 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/980/eng@2023-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.