Bundi v Teachers Service Commission (Petition E278 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2315 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI JUDICIAL REVIEW AND LABOUR RIGHTS DIVISION PETITION NO. E278 OF 2025 SAMMY MAINA BUNDI. …………………………………………………………………….....PETITIONER/APPLICANT -VERSUS- THE TEACHERS SERVICE COMMISSION. ……………………………………………………..….….RESPONDENT CORAM Before Lady Justice Jemimah Keli C/A Otieno JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner is the Deputy Principal in charge of Administration, Teaching and Finance at Oloolaiser Secondary School, a National Boys Boarding School at Ngong Sub-County within Kajiado County. Since 2020, the Petitioner, by virtue of his profession as a registered teacher, has also held the union position of KUPPET Chairperson for Kajiado County for a term of five (5) years ending on 26.02.2026. The Petitioner had been nominated to vie for the powerful Executive Secretary seat in the KUPPET Kajiado County Branch elections slated for 26.02.2026. On 16th December 2025, the petitioner stated that he received a letter of transfer from the respondent from Oloolaiser Secondary School in Kajiado County to Kiboko Secondary School in Machakos County, with effect from 22nd December 2025 and not later than 14 days from 16th December 2025. He alleged that he was not given the reason for the transfer, and that his appeal against it did not elicit a response. The petitioner was aggrieved by the transfer and filed a petition dated 24th December 2025 and amended on the 20th July 2026 seeking the following relief- 2. A Conservatory/Prohibitory/Stay Order do issue staying the Transfer and Release of the Petitioner from Oloolaiser Secondary School, Ngong to Kiboko Secondary School, Machakos as communicated vide letter dated 19.12.2025 pending the hearing and determination of this Petition. 3. A Declaration that the decision by the Teachers Service Commission to Transfer the Petitioner communicated vide letter dated 16.12.2025 and subsequently release him vide letter dated 19.12.2025 is null and void ab initio and the transfer and release be revoked in their entirety. 4. An Order that the Petitioner retains his current position as Deputy Principal Oloolaiser Secondary School until the conduct and completion of KUPPET Elections on 28.02.2026 and if successful he be retained at Oloolaiser Secondary School until completion of his term/tenure as KUPPET Branch Executive Secretary, Kajiado County Branch. 5. An Order be issued that the Petitioner be allowed to campaign and contest the upcoming KUPPET Elections, for Kajiado Branch Executive Secretary slated for 28.02.2026 without any interference/restrictions/conditions whatsoever pending the hearing and determination of this Appeal. 6. An Order be issued that the Teachers Service Commission and its agents/servants or whomsoever acting on its behalf should not take any precipitate/prejudicial action/omission against the Petitioner including but not limited to interdicting/suspending/initiating disciplinary measures, withholding salary, compelling the Petitioner to vacate the teacher's quarters within the school compound/denying the Petitioner's benefits/privileges tied to his position, harassing/intimidating the Petitioner etc. or discriminating against the Petitioner in any manner whatsoever until this Petition is heard and determined by the Honourable Court. 7. An Order of award of compensation in General Damages assessed by the Court to the Petitioner for infringement and violation of the Petitioner's Constitutional rights particularly the right to be treated with human dignity, freedom of association, freedom of movement, freedom of exercise of his political rights without restriction and limitation, right to fair labour practices, right to fair administrative action and right to fair hearing; 8. Costs of this Petition 9. Any further relief/order that the Honourable Court may deem just and fit to grant. 10. The petitioner filed affidavit of even date in support of the petitioner where he annexed as his evidence, ‘SMB-1" being a copy of his National ID card,"SMB-2" and "SMB-3" the KUPPET Election Notice dated 26.11.2025 and his duly filled and accepted nomination form dated 10-12-2025, ‘SMB-4" a copy of the nomination fee payment receipt,"SMB-5" are a bundle of campaign posters and photos,"SMB-6" a copy of the Notice of Branch Elections and Regulations stamped 26.11.2025, Video Evidence and Translation of the Pronouncements Marked as "SBM-7", "SBM-8" being the letter of promotion to deputy principal from TSC dated 5th June, 2025, "SBM-9" being the TSC Transfer letter dated 16.12.2025 6 months after the transfer to the Oloolaiser Secondary School, appeal against the Transfer vide an Appeal letter dated 18.12.2025 annexed herewith and marked "SBM-10" together with evidence of service upon TSC, SBM-11" being a copy of Release Letter dated 19.12.2025, and copies of birth certificates of 2 minors marked as "SBM-12’’. 11. The petition was opposed by the employer, the respondent, who filed replying affidavit sworn by Antonina Lentoijoni on the 13th April 2026 in defence of the transfer decision as follows- 12. THAT the Teachers Service Commission, the 1st Respondent in this matter (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) is established under Article 237 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 with its primary functions under Article 237(2) thereunder being: - 1. To register trained teachers; 2. To recruit and employ trained teachers; 3. To assign teachers in its service to teach in various public schools; 4. To promote and transfer teachers; 5. To exercise disciplinary control over teachers; 6. To terminate the employment of teachers. 13. THAT in addition to the above constitutional provisions, the Commission has statutory mandate under the Teachers Service Commission Act No. 20 of 2012, to transfer and/or deploy any teacher in its service to any basic educational Institutional where it deems the teacher qualified to teach and where his/her services are required. 14. THAT further under Article 237 (3) (b) of the Constitution, the Commission is conferred with the mandate to review the demand and supply of teachers across the country which is aimed at to guaranteeing the appropriate balance in the teacher staffing levels and equitable distribution of teachers in all public schools within the country. 15. THAT in exercising this constitutional mandate, the Commission is pursuant to Article 249 of the Constitution not subject to direction and/or control by any person or authority. 16. THAT administratively and in compliance with Article 6 of the Constitution, the Commission may either act directly or effect such transfer and/or deployment at the instance of/or through its officers at the County levels. 17. THAT in exercise of its mandate under section 47 (2) of the Act, the Commission has published a Code of Regulations for Teachers (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"). 18. THAT under Regulation 62 of the Code, the Commission is empowered to assign any teacher for service in any public school/ Institution in Kenya which it considers him/her qualified to teach. 19. THAT further Regulation 67 of the Code grants the Commission the discretion to transfer teachers in its service as the circumstances may demand even where a teacher has not applied for a transfer. 20. THAT indeed it is not in dispute that the Petitioner is an employee of the Commission employed on or about 12th September, 2001 as a Graduate teacher to teach Maths/Geography and initially posted to present day Nyamira County. Annexed hereto and marked as AL-1 is the employment letter. 21. THAT Clause 6 of the said Letter of Appointment proclaims that the Petitioner's employment is subject to the provisions of the Code of Regulation for Teachers. Accordingly, the Petitioner is bound by the mandatory provisions of the Code. 22. THAT further Clause 5 of the said letter of Appointment duly signed by the Petitioner provides that" A condition for employment is readiness to serve anywhere in Kenya in any school in which the TSC (Commission) considers you are qualified to teach." 23. THAT on or about 5th June 2025 the Commission promoted the Petitioner as Deputy Principal III- D1 and posted him to Oloolaiser Secondary School. Concurrently, the Commission also promoted Martin Newton Wanjohi Ndirangu as Deputy Principal II- D2 and also posted him to Oloolaiser Secondary School. Annexed hereto and marked as AL-2a & 2b are the posting letters for the two teachers. 24. THAT in the course of its routine mandate and statutory functions, the Commission on 15th December 2025 constituted a Staffing Committee mandated to deliberate on the transfer and deployment of Deputy Heads of Institutions across the Republic. Annexed hereto and marked as AL-3 is a copy of the minutes of the Staffing Committee meeting of 15th December, 2025. 25. THAT during the said meeting, it was established that Oloolaiser Secondary School had a student population of below one thousand (1,000) learners yet had two (2) Deputy Principals, contrary to the Commission's Policy an Appointment and Deployment of Institutional Administrators, which provides that a secondary school with a population below 1,000 learners should have only one (1) Deputy Principal. Annexed hereto and marked as AL-4 is the Policy on Appointment and Deployment of Institutional Administrators. 26. THAT consequently, and in furtherance of staff rationalization, the Commission being duly guided by the Code of Regulations for Teachers, the Staffing Committee minutes, and an evaluation of staffing levels in public secondary schools countrywide-on 16th December 2025 transferred the Petitioner, who was junior in rank to his colleague, Martin Newton Wanjohi Ndirangu, from Oloolaiser Secondary School, Kajiado County, to Kiboko Secondary School, Machakos County in the same rankand capacity that of Deputy Principal. Annexed hereto and marked as AL- 5 is a copy of the transfer letter dated 16th December, 2025. 27. THAT the Petitioner's transfer to Kilboko Secondary School was purely administrative and did not amount to a demotion or a disciplinary action in any manner whatsoever, as the Petitioner retained the same position, rank and job grade and suffered no loss of remuneration, status or employment benefits. 28. THAT in accordance with established practice and procedure, the Petitioner was duly cleared and released from Oloolaiser Secondary School by his supervisor, the Chief Principal, to enable him to report to and take up duty at his new station, Kilboko Secondary School. Annexed hereto and marked as AL-6 is a copy of the clearance letter. 29. THAT the orders sought by the Petitioner in the Petition have since been overtaken by events, the Petitioner having already been cleared and released to proceed to his new station, Kiboko Secondary School, and further that Oloolaiser Secondary School currently has a substantive Deputy Principal, as stated hereinabove. 30. THAT the assertion by the Petitioner that the transfer was politically motivated couldn't be farther from the truth and the same is meant to mislead this Honourable Court. The Respondent has a symbiotic relationship with the various teacher unions and adequately supports its activities. 31. THAT at the time the impugned administrative decision was made, the Commission had no knowledge of, nor was it influenced by, any intention on the part of the Petitioner to vie in union elections. 32. THAT I am reliably informed by the TSC Kajiado County Director that despite the Petitioner obtaining interim orders on 31 December, 2025 that suspended the transfer, he did not clinch the Branch Executive Secretary KUPPET Kajiado County seat. Annexed hereto and marked as AL-7 is a copy of the list of the elected KUPPET union officials in Kajiado County. 33. THAT accordingly, the aforesaid interim orders therefore ought to be discharged to enable the smooth running of both institutions Kiboko Secondary School and Oloolaiser Secondary School.25. THAT the orders impede the exercise of constitutional and statutory powers of the 1st Respondent on appointment and transfers of teachers, contrary to the principles of institutional independence under Article 249(2) of the Constitution. 34. THAT the temporary orders initially issued have occasioned administrative confusion and operational inefficiency, in that Oloolaiser Secondary School, despite having a learner population of below one thousand (1,000), continues to have two (2) Deputy Principals, while Kiboko Secondary School currently lacks a Deputy Principal, thereby undermining effective and orderly administration in both institutions. 35. THAT the said orders are against public Policy and Interest and have affected teaching and learning in Kiboko secondary school thereby violating the principle of the best interest of the learners therein and ought to be discharged. 36. THAT in the circumstances of this case, the Commission cannot have two Deputy Principals in one school as the same is contrary to the TSC Act, the Basic Education Act and the principles of good governance set out in the Constitution. 37. THAT prior to effecting the transfer of the Petitioner, the Commission considered numerous factors, including: 1. The constitutional imperative to equitably distribute competent administrator and teachers in public schools across the Country; 2. The constitutional obligation to ensure that the teaching resource is optimally used and administration of the school is effective; 3. The best interest of learners and the statutory right to access quality education through provision of quality teaching, 4. The administrative requirements of both schools. 38. THAT further, the Commission has a duty under law to ensure that learners have access to basic education as decreed under Article 43 of the Constitution. 39. THAT accordingly, the Petitioner's refusal to proceed on transfer is unreasonable, irrational and contrary to his contractual obligations under his contract of employment. 40. THAT it is against public policy and Interest for the Petitioner to allege Immunity to transfer to a school in the same capacity. 41. THAT the Petitioner's Letter of Appointment expressly binds him to work anywhere in the country. Accordingly, failure to proceed on transfer amounts to breach of the terms of his employment set out in his letter of appointment and the Code of Regulations for Teachers. 42. THAT to invoke intervention of this Court in such a matter, the Petitioner seeks to circumvent the dear and unambiguous provisions of his contract of employment. The same should not be countenanced by Court. 43. THAT in response to the averments in the Petition dated 24th December, 2025 I wish to state that, the Respondent is not mandated to give reasons for transfers. In any case, the Petitioner has never been given any reason in the previous transfers including the transfer from Nyamira County to Kajiado County. 44. THAT I have been further advised by my Counsel on record which advice I verily believe to be true that the court's intervention amounts to usurpation of the Commission's constitutional, statutory and administrative mandate to transfer teachers. 45. THAT I reiterate that the act of the Petitioner and prayers sought in his Petition are against public policy and interest in that as a teacher under the Commission's service, he cannot choose which school to serve in as doing so would encroach, diminish and usurp the Constitutional mandate of the Commission. 46. THAT further, it is my considered view that if the Petition is granted the same will disrupt operations at the school, create bad precedent and provoke a trend where every teacher in the Commission's service would dem to be posted to schools of their choice which will in turn create instability and chaos in the entire teaching service. 47. THAT I am further advised by said Counsel which advice I verily believe to be true that the demands put forth by the Petitioner are unreasonable, unlawfuland offends the provisions of the Constitution, the Employment Act, the TSC Act which provides equal treatment of employees. 48. THAT I am also advised by my Counsel that Petition does not raise any Constitutional issues and this Honourable Court is invited to invoke the principle of Constitutional Avoidance and the doctrine of exhaustion. 49. THAT in the circumstances, I reiterate that in effecting this transfer, the Respondents were motivated by its policy guidelines and the need to ensure correct staff balancing and optimal use of teachers. 50. THAT in response to the prayers set out in the Petition I have been advised by my Counsel which advice I verily believe to be true that: - 1. The prayers sought therein are against public policy and interest in that the Petitioner is bound by the contractual obligations he signed in his contract of employment; 2. The Petitioner's prayers if granted will amount to usurpation of the Commission's constitutional, statutory and administrative mandate, 3. The duty of the Court is not to rewrite contracts for parties but to enforce contractual agreements; 4. The prayers put forth by the Petitioner are unreasonable, unlawful and offend the provisions of the Constitution and the Employment Act which provides equal treatment of employees. 5. The prayers if granted will create a bad precedent in the public service and render useless the binding nature of employment contracts. 6. That it is in the best interest of learners that the prayers be declined. 51. In response to the replying affidavit, the petitioner filed a Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 10th June, 2026. Among others, the petitioner contended that the Oloolaiser secondary school had more than 1000 pupils, he had not been transferred from Nyamira but Nkoroi Mixed school in Ngong Kajiado, that he was senior to the other deputy principal who he contended was doing academic work and reiterated that the transfer was not in good faith as it affected his elected role in KUPPET and he would lose the seat on leaving to Machakos county. That his appeal was not considered and the respondent directed his clearance a day after the appeal. 52. The petition was canvassed by way of written submissions. Both parties filed. DETERMINATION Issues for determination 1. The petitioner identified the following issues for determination in the petition – 2. Whether the transfer of the Petitioner by TSC vide the letter dated 16.12.2025 was both substantively and procedurally lawful? 3. Whether the Petitioner lodged an internal Appeal with TSC against his transfer and whether he was heard on his Appeal? 4. Whether the transfer of the Petitioner triggered and occasioned a violation of his Constitutionally guaranteed rights? 5. Whether the Petitioner should be awarded the reliefs sought in the Petition? 6. Conversely, the respondent outlined the following issues- 7. Whether the petitioner’s transfer was lawful 8. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the prayers sought 9. The court, having perused the pleadings and submissions by the parties was of the considered opinion that the issues placed by the parties before the court for determination in the petition were as follows- 10. Whether the transfer of the Petitioner by Respondent vide the letter dated 16.12.2025 violated his constitutional rights 11. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought Whether the transfer of the Petitioner by respondent vide the letter dated 16.12.2025 violated his constitutional rights 1. The facts of the case as presented by the petitioner were not in dispute. The Petitioner was the substantive Deputy Principal in charge of Administration, Teaching and Finance at Oloolaiser Secondary School, a National Boys Boarding School at Ngong Sub-County within Kajiado County. Since 2020, the Petitioner, by virtue of his profession as a registered teacher, has also been holding the union position of KUPPET Chairperson, Kajiado County, for a term of five (5) years ending 26.02.2026. The Petitioner had been nominated to vie for the powerful Executive Secretary seat in the KUPPET Kajiado County Branch elections slated for 26.02.2026. On the 16th December 2025, the petitioner stated that he received a letter of transfer from the respondent from Oloolaiser secondary school in Kajiado county to Kiboko secondary school in Machakos county with effect from 22nd December 2025 and not later than 14 days from 16th December 2025. The petitioner alleged he was not given the reason for the transfer, and his appeal against the transfer did not elicit a response. The petitioner contended that the transfer had no reasons and was made barely 6 months after his transfer from Nkoroi secondary school in Ngong, Kajiado, that the transfer did not factor that he had a family which could be affected by his transfer. The petitioner read malice in the transfer due to his holding position in the KUPPET and having been nominated for the upcoming election, which happened on 26th February 2026. The court stayed the transfer and he participated. The respondent stated the petitioner was unsuccessful in the elections. The petitioner contended that his failure to clinch the seat was not an issue as his right to a fair administrative action, which required a reason for the transfer, and the non-responsive appeal was violated. 2. The respondent is a constitutional commission. Article 237 of the Constitution gives the commission broad powers over teachers of public schools. The respondent contended that in the transfer it exercised its constitutional mandate under Article 237 as follows- ‘237(2)The functions of the Commission are— (a)to register trained teachers; (b)to recruit and employ registered teachers; (c)to assign teachers employed by the Commission for service in any public school or institution; (d)to promote and transfer teachers; (e)to exercise disciplinary control over teachers; and (f)to terminate the employment of teachers.’ 1. The respondent stated that they identified a gap in staffing and decided to transfer the petitioner to Kiboko Secondary School in Machakos. The respondent asserted that the transfer was in accordance with the employment contract and produced the petitioner's employment contract dated 12th September 2001 (AL-1). Clause 7 states, ‘a condition of employment is readiness to serve anywhere in Kenya in any school where the Teachers Service Commission considers you are qualified to teach.’ The Court agreed with the respondent that transfer is a management prerogative. The principles for interference with the management prerogative were set out in Geoffrey Mworia -Versus- Water Resource Management Authority & 2 Others [2015] eKLR, thus, "The principles are clear. The court will very sparingly interfere in the employer's entitlement to perform any of the human resource functions such as recruitment, appointment, promotion, transfer, disciplinary control, redundancy, or any other human resource function. To interfere, the applicant must show that the employer is proceeding in a manner that is in contravention of the provision of the Constitution or legislation; or in breach of the agreement between the parties; or in a manner that is manifestly unfair in the circumstances of the case; or the internal dispute procedure must have been exhausted or the employer is proceeding in a manner that makes it impossible to deal with the breach through the employer's internal process." 2. In this case, the respondent issued the petitioner with a transfer letter dated 16th December 2025 stating that he had been transferred effective from 22nd December 2025, no later than 14 days from the date of the letter, from Oloo Laiser Secondary School to Kiboko Secondary School as Deputy Principal. The letter indicated that any appeal against the transfer should reach the Commission within 14 days of the date of the letter, and in case of appeal, he was required to report to the new station. The court noted there was evidence that the petitioner was holding the position of KUPPET Chairperson for Kajiado County for a term of five (5) years ending 26.02.2026. The respondent did not deny knowledge of this. By the transfer, the petitioner was to lose this position. He was also a nominated candidate in the upcoming KUPPET elections scheduled for 26th February 2026. The petitioner appealed against the transfer via a letter dated 18th December 2025 and, among other issues, raised concerns about the lack of a reason for the transfer, the disturbance to his young family having been transferred barely six months earlier, the issue of being moved to a far-flung area, which would hinder him from discharging his duties as branch chair after moving to Machakos County, as well as being a candidate in the upcoming elections. The respondent did not respond to the appeal and did not deny receipt. 3. The court finds that the failure to give the notice to move was intrinsically short. The petition was transferred vide letter of 16th December 2025 with effect from 22nd December,2025, thus around 6 days' notice. He was released on 19th December 2025, one day after his appeal. The court finds that the short notice and non-responsive appeal were in violation of the right of fair administrative action. Article 47 of the Constitution states- ‘47. Fair administrative action (1)Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.(2)If a right or fundamental freedom of a person has been or is likely to be adversely affected by administrative action, the person has the right to be given written reasons for the action.(3)Parliament shall enact legislation to give effect to the rights in clause (1) and that legislation shall—(a)provide for the review of administrative action by a court or, if appropriate, an independent and impartial tribunal; and(b)promote efficient administration.’ 1. Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act No.4 of 2015 provides as follows:- (1) Every person has the right to administrative action which is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. (2) Every person has the right to be given written reasons for any administrative action that is taken against him. (3) Where an administrative action is likely to adversely affect the rights or fundamental freedoms of any person, the administrator shall give the person affected by the decision- (a) prior and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the proposed administrative action; (b) an opportunity to be heard and to make representations in that regard; (c) notice of a right to a review or internal appeal against an administrative decision, where applicable;’ 2. The court upheld the management prerogative of the respondent. It was held in Alfred Nyungu Kimungui v Bomas of Kenya [2013] eKLR, where the Court observed that employers retain managerial authority in the organisation and deployment of their workforce, provided such authority is exercised within the law and the terms of employment. The decision is consistent with the decision cited by the respondent in Mugo v ASP company limited, where the court upheld transfer as a management prerogative, and the court would only interfere where the transfer is inhumane, actuated by malice or bad faith or exercised unreasonably. 3. The court upholds the constitutional mandate of the respondent under article 237 of the Constitution to transfer the petitioner as it deems necessary. The court holds the transfer decision in the instant case was tainted with unfairness for failure to give the petitioner adequate notice, taking into account his family and children in school, his elected role in KUPPET ending on 26th February 2026 and the failure to consider and give a reason for the appeal raised. The appeal raised legitimate issues like the elected role of the petitioner in KUPPET exercising the right to union activity under Article 41 of the Constitution and the issue of the young family and disturbance of the education of the children. In Kariuki & another v Attorney General & 2 others (Petition E166 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 13501 (KLR) (19 December 2024) (Judgment). The trial court held- ‘While making the findings, the Court has as well considered the provisions of ILO C156 - Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156). The ILO C156 applies to men and women workers with responsibilities in relation to their dependent children, where such responsibilities restrict their possibilities of preparing for, entering, participating in or advancing in economic activity. It provides in Article 3 provides “1. With a view to creating effective equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women workers, each Member shall make it an aim of national policy to enable persons with family responsibilities who are engaged or wish to engage in employment to exercise their right to do so without being subject to discrimination and, to the extent possible, without conflict between their employment and family responsibilities’. Section 53 of the Children Act - '53 (1)Every child has the right - to parental care and protection, which includes equal responsibility of the mother and father to provide for the child, whether they are married to each other or not; and,(b)to free and compulsory basic education.’’ The court did not agree that the employer ought to give a reason for the transfer. Transfer is not a disciplinary measure. The court also faulted the transfer on account of lack of reasonable notice for the petitioner to arrange his affairs of family, children's education and role in KUPPET and the failure e to respond to the appeal. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to relief sought 1. The petitioner sought for various reliefs. On a Declaration that the decision by the Teachers Service Commission to Transfer the Petitioner communicated vide letter dated 16.12.2025 and subsequently release him vide letter dated 19.12.2025 is null and void ab initio and the transfer and release be revoked in their entirety-The court held that the transfer was tainted by lack of reasonable notice. The transfer was lawful being a management prerogative but tainted by lack of reasonable notice and failure to respond to the appeal. The right to fair administrative action, Article 47, was violated. 2. On the prayer for an Order to be issued that the Petitioner be allowed to campaign and contest the upcoming KUPPET Elections, for Kajiado Branch Executive Secretary slated for 28.02.2026 without any interference/restrictions/conditions whatsoever pending the hearing and determination of this Appeal. The prayer is overtaken by events*.* 3. On the prayer for Order to be issued that the Teachers Service Commission and its agents/servants or whomsoever acting on its behalf should not take any precipitate/prejudicial action/omission against the Petitioner including but not limited to interdicting/suspending/initiating disciplinary measures, withholding salary, compelling the Petitioner to vacate the teacher's quarters within the school compound/denying the Petitioner's benefits/privileges tied to his position, harassing/intimidating the Petitioner etc. or discriminating against the Petitioner in any manner whatsoever until this Petition is heard and determined by the Honourable Court. The court finds that it is illegal to victimise the petitioner for bringing the instant petition, the court having held that his right to fair administrative action was violated. 4. On prayer for an Order of award of compensation in General Damages assessed by the Court to the Petitioner for infringement and violation of the Petitioner's Constitutional rights particularly the right to be treated with human dignity, freedom of association, freedom of movement, freedom of exercise of his political rights without restriction and limitation, right to fair labour practices, right to fair administrative action and right to fair hearing; The court held the right to fair administrative action was violated. The court, in the decision on compensation, took into account that the respondent, by consent, suspended the transfer during the pendency of the petition, and that the petitioner was able to serve the entire term in KUPPET and participate in the elections. The respondent respected the Orders of the court. The court has upheld the management prerogative of the respondent to transfer the petitioner's subjection to fair labour practice of reasonable notice, taking into account his young family. I did not find the transfer from Kajiado to a school in Machakos to be a hardship. The counties are next to each other. It was apparent to the court that the transfer notice effected by the principal of the school affected the petitioner’s campaigns for election to KUPPET office and caused him anguish over his fate and that of his family as the appeal was not responded to. The court awards the petitioner compensation of Kshs.100,000 (One hundred thousand only) for the infringement of his right to fair administrative action, Article 47 of the Constitution. The compensation is to vindicate the violation of the petitioner’s constitutional right to fair administrative action. 5. Costs of this Petition are awarded to the petitioner. 6. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026. JEMIMAH KELI, JUDGE IN THE PRESENCE OF: Court Assistant: Otieno Petitioner- Atunga Respondent – Ngere