Lunani v Cabinet Secretary, Roads and Transport & 2 others (Petition E181 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1223 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A senior public officer whose contract renewal was blocked won millions in damages after a court ruled only the Public Service Commission can decide such renewals.
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 breached the petitioner’s rights under the Constitution.
- 2.Whether the prayers sought by the petitioner should be granted.
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondents breached the petitioner’s constitutional rights in the handling of his contract renewal request
Yes - the 1st respondent infringed the petitioner’s Article 41 rights by failing to refer his renewal request to the 3rd respondent (PSC), the lawful employer, for decision.
The court found that the petitioner’s employer was the PSC, not the 1st respondent, and that all previous contracts were signed by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Under the delegation instrument and section 45(3) of the PSC Act, the authorised officer was required to forward the renewal request with performance appraisal reports to the Commission at least three months before expiry. Instead, the 1st respondent itself opted not to renew, which the court held to be an error breaching the petitioner’s labour rights and subjecting him to unfair treatment.
Whether the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of renewal
The court accepted that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation to continue serving, based on his long and excellent service and the absence of disciplinary issues.
The petitioner had served since 2012 with excellent appraisals, no disciplinary record, and had been allowed to work beyond the contract term vide Gazette Notice No. 4494 of 19/4/2024. Notice of non-renewal was not given as the contract required. The 3rd respondent confirmed the authorised officer had no power to decline renewal. On this basis the court found unfair treatment and infringed labour rights, though it stopped short of ordering automatic renewal of the expired contract.
Whether the prayers sought should be granted as framed
Only in part - declarations, re-engagement by the PSC, payment of dues from 1/7/24, and Kshs 3 million damages were granted; the specific reinstatement, renewal and itemised monetary prayers were not granted.
The court fashioned its own remedies rather than granting the prayers verbatim: it declared an Article 41 infringement, ordered re-engagement by the 3rd respondent in a commensurate position since the former position had been filled, awarded salaries and dues from 1/7/24, and general damages of Kshs 3 million for breach of contractual rights, with no order of costs.
Legal principles established
#- An authorised officer has no power to decline renewal of a public officer’s fixed-term contract; the request must be forwarded to the Public Service Commission for consideration and decision.
- Failure to forward a contract renewal request to the Commission breaches the officer’s labour rights and amounts to unfair treatment.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the petitioner’s rights under the Constitution Article 41 were infringed upon by the 1st respondent.
- 2.An order that the petitioner be re-engaged by the 3rd respondent in a position commensurate with his services in the PSC since the position has since been filled.
- 3.The petitioner is entitled to payment of his salaries and dues with effect from the date of 1/7/24 to date.
- 4.The 1st respondent to pay the petitioner damages equivalent to 3 million for breach of his contractual rights.
- 5.There shall be no order of costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya, Articles 41, 47 and 23 (petition alleging infringement of constitutional labour and fair administrative action rights)
Relief refused
#Injunction and mandatory orders compelling renewal/reinstatement of the specific contracts as Director, Aircraft Accident Investigation, Chief Investigator of Accidents and ICAO Accident Investigation Group Panel at Montreal
The court instead ordered re-engagement by the PSC in a commensurate position, noting the position has since been filled; it did not grant the specific reinstatement/renewal prayers.
The specific quantum claims (Kshs 2,560,200 leave; Kshs 1,920,150 salary arrears; Kshs 7,142,958 gratuity; Kshs 7,680,600 compensation; Kshs 1,920,150 notice pay; certificate of service)
The court did not grant the itemised sums claimed, substituting payment of salaries/dues from 1/7/24 and general damages of Kshs 3 million.
Interest on the awards
No order on interest was made in the final orders.
Costs
There shall be no order of 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.
it is evident that the 1st respondent erred in deciding not to refer the request of the petitioner to the 3rd respondent for consideration. This breaches the petitioner’s labour rights under the Constitution which subjected him to unfair treatment in face of his request for extension of his contract.
The petitioner had served the respondents since 2012 and had served excellently and diligently and therefore he had a legitimate expectation to continue serving further.
it is clear that the 1st respondent is not the employer of the petitioner but the PSC the 3rd respondent. It is the 3rd respondent who have the mandate under the constitution to appoint, suspend, interdict or even terminate or dismiss a public servant.
A declaration that the petitioner’s rights under the constitution article 41 were infringed upon by the 1st respondent.
The 1st respondent to pay the petitioner damages equivalent to 3 million for breach of his contractual rights.
There shall be no order of costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Final orders are internally inconsistent as to the payment date - the remedies list '1/7/24' while the narrative records the leave-direction letter as dated '28th July' where the petition pleaded '28th June 2024'.
The judgment states the petitioner was involved in an investigation on '31/5/2024' whereas the pleadings record the Vuria hill accident date as 31st May 2021.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lunani v Cabinet Secretary, Roads and Transport & 2 others (Petition E181 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1223 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 14th November 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1223/eng@2025-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.