Ondago v National Police Service Commission & 4 others; Chairperson Commission on Administrative Justice (Interested Party) (Petition E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1426 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a police officer's dismissal for abandoning a dangerous post but ordered the police commission to pay Kshs. 500,000 for ignoring his appeal.
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 dismissal of the Petitioner on grounds of cowardice and disobedience of lawful orders violated his constitutional rights under Articles 25(c), 28, 41(1) and (2) and 50(1)
- 2.Whether the disciplinary (orderly room) proceedings were procedurally fair and compliant with Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act
- 3.Whether the 1st Respondent's failure to hear and determine the Petitioner's appeal was unlawful and unconstitutional
- 4.Whether the Petitioner was entitled to reinstatement, compensation, and expungement of the disciplinary record
Key legal issues
#Whether the dismissal violated constitutional rights
No - the orderly room proceedings accorded the Petitioner fair hearing rights and the charges were proved.
The Court reviewed the orderly room proceedings of 21st August 2013, noting the Petitioner was allowed to question the two Service witnesses and gave his own statement. The two charges - wilful disobedience of a lawful order to remain at Galmagala and leaving the post without permission - were proved by testimony. The Court found no evidence that intelligence of an imminent attack had been shared, and held the Petitioner's rights under Articles 25(c), 28, 41 and 50(1) were respected.
Whether the withdrawal from Galmagala was a 'tactical withdrawal'
No - it was a surrender of ground without combat or imminent enemy engagement, justifying dismissal.
The Court distinguished genuine tactical retreats - calculated manoeuvres in combat to preserve strength or gain advantage - from the Petitioner's departure, which occurred when no enemy was in sight and no intelligence of an imminent attack was proved. The Petitioner admitted his motive was self-preservation and disillusionment, not a military manoeuvre. Such conduct amounts to desertion, a serious offence in disciplined forces.
Whether the failure to determine the appeal infringed fair administrative action
Yes - the Petitioner is entitled to a declaration and compensation of Kshs. 500,000/-.
The Petitioner appealed after dismissal but received no communication. The Interested Party acknowledged this failure. Article 47(1) guarantees expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action. The Court found the process lethargic and inefficient and awarded Kshs. 500,000/- as the only proved violation.
Legal principles established
#- Desertion of a duty station in a terrorist-prone zone is a serious offence compatible with dismissal of a disciplined officer
- Failure by an administrative body to determine an appeal infringes the right to fair administrative action under Article 47
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the refusal by the 1st Respondent to communicate, consider and/or make any findings with respect to the Petitioner's appeal is unlawful and unconstitutional
- 2.Award of Kshs. 500,000/- to the Petitioner plus costs in respect of the sum so awarded
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23 and 165(3) of the Constitution of Kenya
Relief refused
#Nullification of dismissal, quashing orders of certiorari, mandamus to reinstate, expungement of record, damages for unlawful dismissal, and pension/accrued benefits
The Court found the dismissal lawful; only the failure to determine the appeal amounted to a proved violation.
Costs
The Petitioner is awarded costs in respect of the Kshs. 500,000/- award
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.
The Court returns that the Petitioner's termination of service was within the remit of the 1st Respondent and was effected within the confines of the law. As such, there would be no remedy on that aspect of the Petition.
The Petition is only successful to the extent that a declaration is made that the refusal by the 1st Respondent to communicate, consider and/or make any findings with respect to his appeal is unlawful and unconstitutional.
The Court having discerned that only administrative failures were proved, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of Kshs. 500,000/- plus costs in respect of the sum so awarded.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the petition number or the actual names of the parties; parties are referred to only as 'the Petitioner', 'the 1st Respondent' and 'the Interested Party'.
The judgment inconsistently describes the disciplinary proceedings date: the Petitioner sought certiorari of 'orderly room proceedings of the 19th August 2013' while the Court records proceedings of '21st August 2013'.
The Interested Party's replying affidavit was unreadable and its submissions were disregarded by the Court.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ondago v National Police Service Commission & 4 others; Chairperson Commission on Administrative Justice (Interested Party) (Petition E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1426 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1426/eng@2025-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.