Pamela Nzambi Venda v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions & 2 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court quashed an ODPP transfer issued during an employee's leave without notice, ruling employers must follow their own transfer policies.
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 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents were improperly joined and their names should be struck out
- 2.Whether the petitioner was transferred or deployed to Voi Sub-County
- 3.Whether the transfer or deployment was in breach of constitutional provisions
- 4.Whether the Respondent ought to have taken into consideration the petitioner's family situation before making the decision to deploy or transfer the petitioner
- 5.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Misjoinder of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents
Their names were struck out; the petitioner failed to prove bad faith and sought only costs against them
Section 15 of the ODPP Act protects officers acting in good faith from personal liability. The petitioner alleged bad faith but adduced no evidence from which bad faith could be inferred against the officers collectively. The only relief sought against them was costs, which is not a substantive relief.
Transfer versus deployment
Nothing turns on the distinction; the Respondent uses the terms interchangeably
The ODPP Act does not define the terms; the Policy defines transfer as relocation with a changed pay point and deployment as temporary movement with the pay point unchanged. None of the earlier letters specified durations, and the Respondent used the terms interchangeably, so the wording of the letter was inconsequential.
Breach of the Deployment and Transfer Policy, 2018
The transfer violated the Policy: it was issued during annual leave, with immediate reporting to a station 329 km away, and without adequate notice
Section 3(vi) of the Policy was violated by issuing the letter during leave; paragraph one of the letter breached section 3(viii) on adequate notice for family arrangements. The DPP was nonetheless obligated to exercise his powers rationally and reasonably despite section 5(v).
Violation of Articles 47, 41, 45, 53 and 232 of the Constitution
The transfer was unfair under Article 41(1) and breached section 43(3) of the Public Service Commission Act, but did not violate the right to family or the children's rights
Terms of transfer fall under fair labour practices; the immediate transfer without notice failed that threshold. However, an ordinary transfer of a public officer does not per se violate children's educational rights, and the right to work and the right to family must co-exist.
Discrimination under Article 27 and Section 5(3) of the Employment Act
No prima facie case of discrimination established; comparators were not shown to be similarly circumstanced
The three colleagues transferred on similar terms were the comparators, but the petitioner failed to avail evidence that they were similarly circumstanced and treated differently. The law only prohibits legally unjustifiable differentiation of persons similarly circumstanced.
Legal principles established
#- Transfer of staff is a managerial prerogative of the employer, an integral part of the contract of employment, and the law is concerned only with the fairness of the process
- An employer has no carte blanche in effecting transfers and must comply with its own policies and applicable law
- Bad faith is a serious allegation attracting a heavy burden of proof
- Under section 43(3) of the Public Service Commission Act, the interest of the children of an affected public officer must be taken into account in effecting a transfer
- No suit shall be defeated by misjoinder or non-joinder of parties
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the transfer letter dated 13th April 2026 (Ref. No. 20121044688 (83) transferring the petitioner from ODPP Kajiado to ODPP Voi Sub-County was unfair
- 2.Declaration that the Respondent's failure to take into consideration the Petitioner's children who were minors was unlawful
- 3.Declaration that issuance of the transfer letter during the petitioner's approved leave without prior notice was unreasonable
- 4.An order of certiorari calling into the court and quashing the transfer letter dated 13th April 2026 (Ref. No. 20121044688 (83)
- 5.The Respondent is directed to transfer or deploy the petitioner to a station within reasonable commuting distance of Nairobi for the remainder of the year 2026
- 6.The names of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents struck out from the petition
- 7.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 27, 28, 41, 53 and 232 of the Constitution; Rule 4 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013; Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Injunction restraining implementation of the transfer letter or further transfers
It would deny the ODPP the power to transfer prosecution staff based on exigencies of duty
General damages for violation of constitutional rights
Petitioner remains in employment under a contract of service
Costs borne by the Respondents jointly and severally
Petitioner still in Respondent's employment
Costs
Each party to bear their own 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.
Declaration that the transfer letter dated 13 th April 2026 (Ref. No. 20121044688 (83) transferring the petitioner from ODPP Kajiado to ODPP Voi Sub-County was unfair.
An order of certiorari calling into this court and quashing the transfer letter dated 13 th April 2026 (Ref. No. 20121044688 (83).
the Respondent is directed to transfer or deploy the petitioner to a station within reasonable commuting distance of Nairobi for the remainder of the year 2026.
Considering that the petitioner is still in the Respondent's employment under a contract of service, parties shall bear their own costs.
Clearly, the employer has no carte blanche in effecting transfer of staff.
In a transfer the member of staff should be the focus not the service, for the simple reason that one is dependent on the other.
Prosecutorial, judicial and administrative parliamentary are not emergencies. They are flexible and adjustable so should be the transfer of employees.
Bad faith is a serious allegation which attracts a heavy burden of proof
Issues in the judgment
#Service dates at ODPP Kajiado conflict between parties' pleadings
Judgment refers to a 4th Respondent though only three respondents are named in the cause title
Mboya citation given inconsistently as KEHC 10916 and KEHC 10910
Namu citation given inconsistently as KEELRC 123 and KEELRC 1231
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pamela Nzambi Venda v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). Petition No. E139 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2767/eng@2026-10-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.