Kombo v Principal Secretary, State Department for Technical, Vocational Education and Training & another (Judicial Review E008 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3774 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court declined to halt disciplinary action against a public employee because his early retirement was never approved, so his employer still had authority over him.
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 threshold for the orders of Certiorari and Prohibition has been met as for the court to issue the orders as prayed for in the application
- 2.Costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the threshold for certiorari was met
Certiorari was declined; the disciplinary letters were issued within the 1st Respondent's administrative powers and no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety was proved
The Applicant's request for early retirement was never approved, so his employment with the 1st Respondent continued and he remained subject to its administrative control. He did not deny drawing a salary from the Respondent while employed at Kibabii University. The Respondent's powers derived from Executive Order No. 2 of 2023, and the judicial review jurisdiction is supervisory only, examining whether the decision was made within the confines of the law.
Whether the threshold for prohibition was met
Prohibition was declined; the impugned actions had already been executed and no prima facie illegality was shown
Prohibition forestalls future or anticipated unlawful acts; it does not quash or correct completed decisions. The show-cause letter of 13th August 2024 and the invitation to a disciplinary hearing of 26th February 2025 had already been undertaken, leaving nothing to prohibit. The court will also not prohibit disciplinary proceedings absent prima facie evidence of illegality, as that would interfere with statutory and institutional powers over employees.
Legal principles established
#- Certiorari lies to quash decisions reached in excess of, or in the absence of, jurisdiction
- Prohibition prevents the making or implementation of a decision not yet executed; it cannot remedy an act already completed
- Where an employee's request for early retirement is not approved, the employment continues and the employee remains subject to the employer's administrative control
Court orders
#- 1.That the application for Judicial Review by the Applicant dated 1st August 2025 has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 41(1) & 47(1) of the Constitution; Order 53 Rules 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act; Rule 7 of the Employment & Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016
Relief refused
#Order of certiorari to quash the disciplinary proceedings and decisions in letters dated 2/4/2024 and 13/8/2024 and subsequent ones
No illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety demonstrated; the Applicant remained an employee of the 1st Respondent absent approval of his early retirement
Order of prohibition restraining the Respondent from taking any further action against the Applicant
The impugned actions (show-cause letter and invitation to disciplinary hearing) had already been undertaken, and there was no prima facie evidence of illegality
Costs of the application
The court ordered no orders as to costs
Costs
No orders as to 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.
The court shall not interfere with the institutional functions of the 1st Respondent and, in the circumstances, declines to issue the order of certiorari as sought.
There is no illegality, irrationality, unreasonableness, malice, caprice, or procedural impropriety demonstrated or proved and this court has no business entering into the workplace and purporting to manage the same.
In essence, prohibition issues to forestall a future or anticipated unlawful act. It neither quashes nor corrects a decision that has already been made and implemented or executed, nor can it be invoked to remedy an existing wrong.
That the application for Judicial Review by the Applicant dated 1st August 2025 has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Numbered orders paragraph jumps from paragraph 33 to paragraph 50, indicating a numbering discontinuity in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kombo v Principal Secretary, State Department for Technical, Vocational Education and Training & another (Judicial Review E008 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3774 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 1st August 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3774/eng@2025-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.