SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Benard Mbaru Mburu v National Police Service Commission [2017] KEELRC 708 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 708 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
708
Citation
[2017] KEELRC 708 (KLR)
Decided
8 September 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeReview of Vetting DecisionPosturePetition for Review of Vetting Decision
Holding

The court found that the procedure followed by the respondent in vetting and removing the petitioner violated the rules of natural justice.

Facts

The petitioner, Benard Mbaru Mburu, was removed from his position as a Superintendent of the Administration Police Service by the National Police Service Commission (NPC). Four complaints were made against him, alleging tribal favoritism and allowing Kikuyu constables to own businesses in Eldoret town.

Issues

  1. Whether the procedure followed by the respondent in vetting and removing the petitioner violated the rules of natural justice.
  2. Whether the finding by the review panel is supported by evidence presented before the review panel.
  3. What remedies are available to the petitioner.

Reasoning

The court held that the petitioner was not given adequate notice of the complaints against him and that no direct evidence was presented to substantiate the allegations.

Outcome

The court ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner to his post as a Superintendent of the Administration Police Service and ordered the respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner.

Orders

  • Reinstatement of the petitioner to his post as a Superintendent of the Administration Police Service
  • Compensation to the petitioner for the violation of his fundamental rights and freedoms

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • National Police Service (Vetting) Regulations, 2013
  • Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case