Jadevela v National Police Service Commission & 2 others (Petition E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1617 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A former Administration Police officer lost his constitutional petition over withheld pension because his case lacked precision and was filed too late.
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 preliminary objection on limitation under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007 was sustainable
- 2.Whether the petition met the precision threshold required of constitutional pleadings under rule 10(c) and (d) of the Mutunga Rules and Anarita Karimi Njeru
- 3.Whether the withholding of the petitioner's pension and gratuity violated his constitutional rights to property and social security
- 4.Whether the petitioner was entitled to service pay, public holiday, leave and resting-day reliefs and a certificate of service
Key legal issues
#Limitation under section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007
The preliminary objection was dismissed as based on disputed facts, and in any event section 90 was inapplicable because the Employment Act excludes the Administration Police Service; final submissions on it remained misconceived
The respondents argued the dismissal letter of 25.02.2011 meant the claim, filed 13.01.2025, was time-barred under section 90's three-year limitation. The petitioner exhibited a letter of 11.02.2022, making the accrual date disputed, so the objection failed. The Court further held that the Act does not apply to the Administration Police Service under section 3(2)(b), though the cause of action appeared time-barred under the six-year general contract limitation.
Precision and threshold of constitutional pleadings
The petition merely enumerated constitutional provisions without pleading specific facts of infringement by the respondents and was fatally defective
Relying on Anarita Karimi Njeru and rule 10(c) and (d) of the Mutunga Rules, the Court held the petitioner failed to particularize the provisions violated, the manner of violation, and the injury caused. The 1st respondent's own exhibited letter confirmed all transactions concluded before it became operational, and the petitioner did not dispute this or establish any infringement on a balance of probability.
Limitation under general contract limitation period
The cause of action appeared time-barred under the six-year limitation for contract-based causes, and no explanation was given for the delay
Although section 90 of the Employment Act did not apply, the Court observed the cause of action, being contract-based, was governed by the six-year general limitation, which had lapsed by about six years given the 2011 dismissal and 2025 filing; the petitioner offered no explanation for the belated filing.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging violation of constitutional rights must plead with precision the specific rights violated, the manner of violation, and the nexus between the respondent's conduct and the infringement
- It is insufficient to merely enumerate constitutional provisions without showing how the respondent infringed them
- The Employment Act, 2007 does not apply to the Kenya Police, Kenya Prisons Service or Administration Police Service
- A preliminary objection premised on disputed facts must fail
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed
- 2.No orders on costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (enforcement of Bill of Rights) read with rule 10 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2013
Relief refused
#Declaration that withholding of pension violated Articles 40(3) and 43(1)(e)
Petitioner failed to plead with precision the rights violated, by whom and how, and did not establish the claim on a balance of probability
Nullification of the decision to withhold pension and release of pension and social security benefits
Claim time-barred and pleadings fatally defective
Service pay, public holidays, annual leave and resting days reliefs
No material facts pleaded or evidence adduced to justify the reliefs
Certificate of service, damages and costs
Petition dismissed in its entirety for want of specificity; no costs to issue
Costs
No costs - each party to bear their own costs, expressed as 'the petition is liable to dismissal and considering all circumstances of the case, no costs will issue' and 'the petition is dismissed with no orders on 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.
In conclusion the petition is dismissed with no orders on costs.
The petition therefore finds accordingly and the petition is liable to dismissal and considering all circumstances of the case, no costs will issue.
It is trite law that a party alleging violation of constitutional rights must plead with precision the specific rights allegedly violated, the manner in which they were violated, and the nexus between the 1st Respondent’s conduct and the alleged infringement.
The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs in the cause because it is based upon disputed facts about the date of the cause of action.
section 3 (2) (b) of the Act provides that the Act shall not apply to, inter alia, the Kenya Police, the Kenya Prisons Service, or the Administration Police Service.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting dates in the pleading of the charges: the supporting affidavit states the Orderly Room Proceedings were on 8th February 2011, while the charge particulars describe the offence as occurring on 28th February 2011
Inconsistent dates of dismissal within the record: the dismissal letter is dated 25.02.2011 effective 21.02.2011, while the affidavit heading states 28th January 2011 as the incident date and other passages give 25th February as the dismissal date without a year
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jadevela v National Police Service Commission & 2 others (Petition E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1617 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 20.11.2024, filed 13.01.2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1617/eng@2025-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.