https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1728

Geofrey v Director Personnel, Directorate of Criminal nvestigations & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E106 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1728 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1728 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Petition E106 of 2025 JW Keli, J June 19, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 27, 28, 41 AND 246(3)a OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 -AND- IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 33 OF THE NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE ACT NO 11A OF 2011 -AND- IN THE MATTER OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE -AND- IN THE MATTER OF THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS - AND- IN THE MATTER OF CHAPTER 72 OF THE NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE STANDING ORDERS Between Martin Paul Geofrey Petitioner and Director Personnel, Directorate of Criminal Investigations 1st Respondent Directorate of Criminal Investigations 2nd Respondent Inspector General National Police Service 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.The petitioner and Judgment Holder, regarding the non-compliance by the respondents with the court's judgment in his favour, filed an application by way of Notice of Motion brought under section 5 of the Judicature Act, sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21, and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, for orders:a.Spentb.That this Honorable Court be pleased to issue an order directed at the Director, Directorate of Criminal Investigations and Director Personnel, Directorate of Criminal Investigations to continue paying the salary of Martin Paul Geofry pending the hearing and determination of this Application.c.That this Honorable Court be pleased to declare and hold that, having been served/ having been aware of the order of this Honorable Court issued on 30th October 2025 quashing the transfer of the Applicant from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, the Respondents have disobeyed the same by failing/refusing to reinstate the Applicant's employment and hence in contempt of court.d.That this Honorable Court be pleased to declare and hold that, having been served/ having been aware of the order of this Honorable Court issued on 30th October 2025 quashing the transfer of the Applicant from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, the Respondents have disobeyed the same by stopping the Applicant's salary from the month of November 2025 and hence in contempt of court.e.That the Respondents be committed to civil jail for a period of 6 months each or any other period, or any other or further sanction, as this court may deem fit and appropriate. 6. That the Respondents be ordered to pay costs of this Application. Grounds of the application 2.On 30th October 2025, this Honorable Court presided by Honorable Justice Nduma Nderi entered judgment in favour of the Applicant quashing his unlawful transfer from DCI Headquarters to Anti-Stock Theft Unit. 3.The Applicant through his advocates on record extracted the decree issued on 11th November 2025 and proceeded to serve the same on the Respondents on 14th November 2025; 4.Upon being served with the court orders, the Respondents took the unprecedented step of stopping the Applicant's salary for the month of November 2025; they further refused to reinstate him to his duties at the Directorate; 5.By stopping the Applicant's salary, the Respondents have caused him immense suffering as this is his only source of livelihood; 6.The Applicant is left at crossroads not knowing what to do since the court clearly pronounced itself on the matter regarding his employment and he expected to be back at work so as to be able to provide for his young family; 7.Despite demands that the Respondents do comply with the court orders, they have refused to do so; 8.The respondents have greatly undermined the rule of law and authority of this Honourable court and are punishable with imprisonment of the kind meted out to the contemnors in Refrigerator and Kitchen Utensils Ltd -v- G. P. Shah and Others, Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Civil Application No. 39 of 1990; 9.The law was stated in Spokes -v- Banbury Board of Health by Wood V.C that the simple and only view is that an order must be obeyed, that those who wish to get rid of that order must do so by the proper course, an appeal. So long as it exists, it must be obeyed and obeyed to the letter; 10.It is now established that the mental element for liability for contempt arising out of disobedience is simply that the disobeying party either intended to disobey, or made no reasonable attempt to comply with the order; see in this respect the English House of Lords decision in Heatons Transport ( St Helens) Ltd v Transport and General Workers Union (1973) AC 15; this disobedience was carried out by the respondents when they chose not to reinstate the Applicant and further went on to stop his salary for the month of November 2025; 11.The reason why courts punish for contempt is to uphold the dignity and authority of the court, ensure compliance with directions of the court, observance and respect of due process of law, preserve an effective and impartial system of justice, and maintain public confidence in the administration of justice by courts; without sanctions for contempt, there would be a serious threat to the rule of law and administration of justice; 12.It is in the interest of justice that the orders sought herein be granted and the undermining of this court’s authority be put to an end. Response 13.The respondents filed a response in opposition to the application for contempt vide replying affidavit of Raaria Muriuki, Senior Superintendent of Police, C/O Directorate of Criminal Investigations, dated 23rd January 2026 as follows- 14.That I am the Staffing Officer Personnel at the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, the 2" respondent fully seized of the facts of this matter, having been fully authorized by the respondents herein hence competent to swear this affidavit for the respondents. 15.That I have read the petition and the supporting affidavits of the petitioner and the same having explained to me by counsel on record, wish to respond as follows; 16.That the Respondent is the head of the Directorate of the Personnel at the Directorate of Criminal Investigations charged with specific duties ranging from deployment, transfers, capacity building, courses, recruitment, promotions, discipline, resignation, retirement and general welfare of officers and any other duties assigned by the Director, Directorate of Criminal or Deputy Director as the case may be. 17.That the 2ndrespondent is a government entity established under Article 247 of the Constitution 2010 under the direction, command and control of the Inspector General of police, the 31(1 respondent. 18.That the 3111 respondent is the Inspector General of police appointed in accordance with Article 245(2)(a) of the constitution of Kenya 2010 with a constitutional mandate of exercising independent command over the National Police Service and perform any other functions prescribed by National legislation. 19.That the 3rdrespondent while discharging the Constitutional Mandate exercise an independent decision on matters pertaining to employment, assignment. Promotion, suspension, or dismissal of any member of the national Police service within the confine of the law and National policies. 20.That on 1 e June 2025, the Directorate of criminal Investigations was served with and an application dated 30thMay 2025 filed by the petitioner and the same was acknowledged receipt at the Secret Registry by stamping the original. 21.That on 9th June 2025, the Inspector General was served with and an application dated 30th May 2025 filed by the petitioner and the same was acknowledged receipt by stamping the original. 22.That on 10thJune 2025, the Directorate of criminal Investigations was served with and an application dated 30th May 2025 filed by the petitioner and the same was acknowledged receipt at the Secret Registry by stamping the original. 23.That the application was served alongside the order of the court for inter parties hearing scheduled for 12thJune 2025 through video link. 24.That the parties were directed to consider for a comprise taking into account the National Police service transfer policy and towards with a view of an amicable resolution of the dispute by recording a consent upon return as may be just and appropriate. 25.That on 12thJune 2025, the application came up for hearing where the respondents were unrepresented and orders were issued restraining the respondents from transferring or effecting the transfer of the petitioner to Anti Stock Theft Unit. 26.That the respondents were to file a replying affidavit within 14 days of service and the same fixed for hearing on 28th July 2025. 27.That on 16thNovember, 2025 the Directorate of Criminal Investigations was served with a judgement dated 11thNovember, 2025 alongside a decree quashing the transfer of the petitioner from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations to Anti Stock Theft Unit. 28.That, the Judgment and a decree was acknowledged receipt at the Secret Registry by stamping the original. 29.That as per the decree the court held that the transfer was unlawful, irregular and in violation of Article 10(2) 41(1) and 47(1) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 as read with Paragraph 6(2) of the National Police Service standing orders. 30.That on 1st December 2025 the Directorate of Criminal Investigations received a letter from the Inspector General forwarding the decree alongside the judgement for perusal and necessary action. 31.That, on 1st January 2025 the Directorate of Criminal Investigations received a contempt of court application alongside a notice of motion where the applicant had sought for orders from this honourable court to direct the Director, Directorate of Criminal investigations and the Director, Personnel to continue paying his salary. 32.That the court to declare and hold that having been served/having been aware of the order of this honourable court issued on 30thOctober 2025 quashing the transfer of the applicant from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, the respondents have disobeyed the same by stopping the applicant's salary from the month of, 2025 and hence in contempt of court. 33.That, the court to declare and hold that having been served/having been aware of the order of this honourable court issued on 30th October 2025 quashing the transfer of the applicant from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, the respondents have disobeyed the same by failing /refusing to reinstate the applicant's employment and hence in contempt of court. 34.That, further, the respondents be committed to civil jail for a period of 6 months each or any other period or any other or further sanctions, as this court may deem fit and appropriate. 35.That the Applicant is a Police officer serving under the National Police Service, with effect from 6thOctober,2008. 36.That the Petitioner upon accepting the appointment in the National Police Service was subject to all regulations for the officers of Public Service of Kenya which were in force or which may be promulgated from time to time. 37.That, the petitioner accepted to the terms of the letter of appointment, he was to be subjected to provisions of the National Police Service Act and that he was liable to be posted to any station within the Republic of Kenya to discharge his duties. 38.That on 22'dMay 2025 the petitioner was deployed from Directorate of Criminal Investigations to Administration Police Service -Anti Stock Theft Unit. (Annexed hereto and marked DCI-1 is a copy of the Inspector General letter Ref.NPS/IG/SEC/1/2/29NOL.XV1/93 dated 22" May 2025 deploying the petitioner from Directorate of Criminal Investigations to Administration Police Service -Anti Stock Theft Unit). 39.That the respondents sanctioned the deployment of the applicant by invoking the provisions of chapter 72, paragraph 6(3) of the Service Standing Orders and thus the applicant was subsequently transferred to the Anti-Stock Theft Unit of the Administration Police Service, vide a signal dated 28thMay, 2025. 40.That on 30thMay 2025 the applicant was issued with Matching Orders from Directorate of Criminal Investigations to report to the Administration Police Service -Anti Stock Theft Unit hence the officer ceased to be a DCI officer. (Annexed hereto and marked DCI '2' is a copy of the Marching orders dated 30"' May 2025 releasing the petitioner from Directorate of Criminal Investigations to Administration Police Service -Anti Stock Theft Unit). 41.That the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and the Administration Police Service are two distinct Police government entities with separate function as stipulated under the National Police Service Act. 42.That, by the time of this application, the Applicant had already been transferred to the Administration Police Service alongside his payroll details for administration action. 43.That the Administration Police Service is headed by Deputy Inspector General of Police established in accordance with article 245(3) of the constitution of Kenya, 2010. 44.That the alleged orders and contempt application were not served to the Deputy Inspector General of police in charge of the Administrative Service where the officer is currently deployed. 45.That on 1stDecember 2025, the Directorate of Investigations received a letter regarding the judgement and the decree from the Inspector General forwarding the same for necessary action. (Annexed hereto and marked DCI '3' is a copy of the letter regarding the judgement and the decree from the Inspector General). 46.That, the respondents have not acted in bad faith because upon receiving the letter from the Inspector General regarding the Judgement and the decree of this court, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations was to advice on deployment of the petitioner to Administration Police Service. 47.That, respondents are not willing to disobey the orders of this honourable court and at all times the respondents have acted in good faith and have not intended to hold this honourable court in contempt. 48.That, on 20th January, 2026, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations made a request to the Attorney General, the government legal advisor to enter appearance on behalf of the respondents in an effort to make sure that any subsequent orders of this honourable court are obeyed to the later. 49.That, the contempt of court application was procedurally defective has the parties were not properly enjoined violating mandatory procedural rules. 50.That the petitioner has not approached this Honourable court with clean hands and has failed to disclose the entire factual matrix of the present issue. The averments made by the petitioner in the contempt petition are not only correct and misleading but are made with the sole intent to prejudice this honourable court. 51.That, a perusal of the petition the petitioner indicates the respondent's fullest cooperation and any alleged of non-cooperation against the respondents has not been raised before this honourable court. 52.That the contents of Paragraph c, f, g, of the notice of motion and paragraph 10,12, of the supporting affidavit of the contempt application under reply are denied for being false ,misconstrued and misguiding .it is denied that the respondents are not cooperating with the petitioner and are meant to disobey the court orders. 53.That, the contents of paragraph h to k of the notice of motion of the contempt petition under reply are a matter of law and require no response from the respondents herein. 41. That the alleged disobedience was not willful as performance was impossible due to distinct administrative roles between the Pt ,2nd respondents and the Administration Police Service. 54.That without prejudice to my defenses, I wish to tender the respondent's deepest apologies to this honourable court for any inadvertent noncompliance of the court orders. 55.That, the respondents are committed to the rule of law and -will ensure that court orders are obeyed. 56.That the contempt application is premature, vexatious, bad in law and was not brought in good faith. 57.That the honourable court be pleased to dismiss the contempt application with costs and discharge the contemnors herein accordingly. 58.That what is deponed to herein above is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, save for matters deposed to on information, the sources whereof have been disclosed. Decision 59.The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. All parties filed. 60.The court, on perusal of the application and the response, found that considerable time had lapsed since the application was filed. The court finds that the respondent committed to comply with the court judgment in the replying affidavit of Raaria Muriuki, Senior Superintendent of Police, of 23 January 2026. There is no update on the compliance since then. Court orders must be strictly complied with unconditionally. I hold in abeyance the ruling on contempt and grant 14 days for the respondent to file a report on compliance with the Judgment failing which the court will presume no compliance and render a ruling. Mention on 6th July 2026 for further orders. 61.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH JUNE, 2026.JEMIMAH KELI,JUDGE.In the Presence of:Court Assistant: OtienoPetitioner/ Applicant- OtaoRespondent – Ms. MochongeRULING IN NAIROBI ELRC PETITION NO. E106 OF 2025 8 | Page