https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2362

Githendu v General & 3 others (Petition E130 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2362 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 2362 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Petition E130 of 2025 JK Gakeri, J July 31, 2026 Between CPL Peter Mwangi Githendu Petitioner and Attorney General 1st Respondent National Police Service Commission 2nd Respondent The Inspector General of the National Police Service 3rd Respondent The Deputy Inspector General, Kenya Police Service 4th Respondent Judgment 1.The Petitioner filed the instant petition dated 26th June 2025 on 27th June 2025, contemporaneously with a Notice of Motion of even date seeking a temporary stay of the Respondent’s decision to transfer him from Ongata Rongai Police Station to Naishi Police Station in Nakuru County or Kariene Police Station in Meru County and the court granted a temporary stay on 30th June 2025, which order is still in force as affirmed by the Court’s Ruling dated 19th November 2025. 2.The Petitioner seeks orders that:1.A declaration that the 3rd and 4th Respondent’s transfer of the petitioner from Ongata Rongai to either Nakuru or Meru is unfair.2.A declaration that the 3rd and 4th Respondents transfer of the Petitioner from Ongata Rongai to either Nakuru or Meru violated the rights of the petitioner’s developmentally and medical care of his disabled daughter as enshrined under Articles 53 of the Constitution of Kenya.3.A declaration that the petitioner has been subjected to unfair working environment and labour practices contrary to the provisions of Articles 27,28, 41 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya.4.A declaration that the 3rd and 4th Respondents actions violated the Constitution of Kenya.5.Compelling the Respondents to consider the needs of the Petitioner’s disabled child developmentally and care when contemplating the transfer of the petitioner.6.Compelling the Respondents to pay general damages to the petitioner.7.Compelling the Respondents to pay costs of the suit. 3.The petitioner’s case is that he joined the Police Service in 1992 and has served diligently. The petitioner, did not however disclose all the stations he had served in since 1992 save for Kericho, to demonstrate that he was forced to make numerous trips to Nairobi and back to attend his child, which was expensive. 4.The petitioner avers that he has a seven (7) year old child who was diagnosed with a congenital condition of cerebral palsy with epilepsy rendering her physically and mentally disabled. 5.The basis of the petition is that the 3rd and 4th Respondents transferred the petitioner to both Naishi Police Station in Nakuru and Kariene Police Station in Meru vide letters dated 11th June 2025 and 13th June 2025. The Marching Orders to proceed to Naishi Police Station was not availed by the petitioner and the document relied upon lacked authentication. That the appeal was unsuccessful. 6.The petitioner cited the provision of Article 10, 22(1), 24, 27(1), (2), (3) and (5), 28, 41, 47(1) and (2), 48, 53, 54 and 258 of the Constitution as the constitutional background of the petition and the provisions of Sections 8, 11 and 20 of the Children Act, Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, Section 3(2) and (3) of the National Police Service Commission (Transfer and Deployment) Regulations 2015 and Section 5(2) (3) (6) and (7) of the Employment Act as the Statutory basis of the Petition. Respondent’s Case 7.By a Replying Affidavit sworn on 17th July 2025, in opposition to the petition, the 3rd and 4th Respondents deponed that the petitioner agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the employment and was not diligent at all times as alleged as in November 2010 he was arraigned in court for assaulting one Nancy Muthoni Mwaniki but was discharged when the complaint was withdrawn. 8.That applicant had entered one Irene Wairimu Muiruri as spouse and next of kin in 2019, while a copy of the birth certificate attached showed that the mother of the child was Irene Wairimu Macharia and in 2025 next of kin details were changed to read Ann Nduta Wanjiru. 9.The affiant deponed that Regional Police Commanders propose deployment and seek approval of the Deputy Inspector General, and in this case the Regional Commissioner’s proposal was overtaken by the Deputy Inspector General’s deployment and the petitioner had been in good health save for having accidentally shot himself in my 2020, while at Kasarani Police Station. 10.That Meru County was well endowed with private and Level IV Hospital. That annexure “PMG-8” was a petitioner’s complaint against the Kasarani Sub-County Police Commander, Mr. Peter Mwanzo SSP addressed to IPOA and did not prove any misunderstanding between the petitioner and the OCS Ongata Rongai. 11.The affiant further deponed that the child’s mother was neither incapacitated nor unable to take care of the minor. That the petitioner’s documents had inconsistencies having previously averred that he had been cohabiting with one Ann Nduta Wakiuru in Juja since 2002. 12.Vide a response sworn on 25th July 2026, the petitioner deponed that he was polygamous with two (2) wives since 2009 under the Agikuyu customs and the respondents were aware of the state of his health as he had forwarded medical certificates. He deponed that there was no Level five (5) and Level six (6) hospital in Meru and both parents were needed to meet the needs of the child. Petitioner’s Submissions 13.As to whether the petitioner’s transfer was unreasonable, unfair and unlawful, counsel submitted that it failed to consider the medical and humanitarian factors effecting the family and in particular the child’s condition and the petitioner’s hypertension. 14.Reliance was placed on the decisions in Dry Associates Ltd v Capital Markets Authority (2012) eKLR and Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava (2015) eKLR, to urge that the transfer to remote areas would deprive his child specialized medical attention in violation of the petitioners’ constitutional rights. Counsel submitted that the petitioner’s right to human dignity and right to health were violated as well as Article 53 (2) and 27 of the Constitution of Kenya. 15.Reliance was placed on the decision in PAO & 2 others v Attorney General (2012) eKLR, to urge that the Respondents failure to accommodate the special needs of the petitioner’s family amounted to indirect discrimination. 16.Counsel submitted that the power of transfer was used arbitrarily and in an inconsistent manner. On withholding of the petitioner’s salary, counsel submitted that the petitioner had been out of work for 11 months which had occasioned him hardships and violated his right to fair labour practices citing the decision in Banking, Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya) v Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd (2014) eKLR. 17.On entitlement to damages, counsel submitted that where rights and fundamental freedoms are violated, courts had held that damages may be awarded and the petitioner had suffered emotional anguish, psychological distress, separation from family, disruption of doctor’s medical care and financial hardship among others to urge the court to award general damages. 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondents’ submissions 18.On whether the instant petition offended the doctrine of exhaustion, under section 9(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, reliance was placed on the decision in Cortec Mining Kenya Ltd v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Mining & 9 others (2015) eKLR and Megalith, Mining Co. Ltd v Hon. AG & Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Mining Nairobi ELC Misc. (JR) Civil Application No. 948 of 2015, to urge that the petitioner ignored the prescribed procedure citing the decision in Secretary, County Public Service Board and another v Hulbhai Gedi Abdille (2017) eKLR. 19.On entitlement to reliefs, counsel submitted that the inconsistencies regarding his spouse and mother of the child and the next of kin showed that the petitioner was dishonest and his hands were tainted and was not entitled to any equitable relief citing the decision in Caliph Properties Ltd v Barbel Shama & another (2015) eKLR. Analysis 20.The facts of this case are largely uncontested, save for the petitioner having served diligently, respondents knowledge of the entire medical history of the petitioner’s family and the nature of the petitioner’s marriage, which the petitioner explained as being polygamous. The change of next of kin details pursuant to letters dated 26th March 2019 to Irene Wairimu Muiruri and on 30th January 2025 pursuant to an Affidavit was contradicted by the supporting affidavit which stated that the petitioner, the child and its mother were living together within Ongata Rongai. 21.However, nothing turns on the issue since the petitioner explained that situation. 22.It is not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Corporal effective 22nd August 2024 and was deployed Kariene Police Station in Meru by the Deputy Inspector General, National Police Service effective 27th June 2025. The list contained 24 names of officers. 23.The petitioner’s marching orders was dated 20th June 2026 signed by the OCS Ongata Rongai. The court could not trace any Deployment letter or marching orders to Naishi Police Station in Nakuru and in any case having been approved by the Deputy Inspector General National Police Service, the transfer to Kariene Police Station was the operative transfer. 24.From the record, there is evidence to show that vide letter dated 9th December 2021, the petitioner requested rescission of a transfer from Kasarani Stadium Police Station to Nogirimori Police Station in Kericho on medical grounds, (hypertension) and had been diagnosed with the setting in of a mild stroke in March 2018 as well as the child’s indisposition then five (5) years old and pleaded readiness to serve at any station in Nairobi. 25.The letter contesting the transfer to Kariene Police Station on record was neither dated nor signed and had no addressee. 26.Documentary evidence on record further revealed that the Petitioner was attended to a Kenyatta National Hospital from 21st June 2005 to 27th June, 2005, Kihara Sub-District Hospital on 27th September 2014, 28th September 2014 and 3rd December 2014 for dizziness, Mlolongo Health Centre and vide letter dated 3rd December 2014 and was accorded 5 days off duty from 4th December 2014. 27.Although the letter stated that the claimant was being attended to at the Health Centre, no dates were provided as to when he started his attendance to the clinic or evidence of a previous visit bearing in mind that on 3rd December 2014 he was attended to at Kihara Sub-District Hospital where his age was indicated as 39 and 40 in Mlolongo. The two institutions are in different counties. 28.Documents further revealed that the petitioner was attended to and admitted at the Nairobi Women’s Hospital from 14th August 2017 to 17th August 2017, the nature of illness was unclear, Radiant Hospital from 2nd March 2016 to 5th March 2016 for the left hand injury occasioned by his gun was treated at Radiant Hospital from 7th May 2020 to 8th May 2020 and accorded 21 days off duty and on 10th August 2020 he was attended to at Park Road Nursing Home for the gunshot wound. 29.The petitioner was admitted at the Nairobi Women’s Hospital from 28th February 2024 to 1st March 2024 for hypertension among other diagnosis and was attended to at the Central Memorial Hospital Ltd, Thika on 3rd February 2025 for headache, blurred vision and insomnia and was accorded 3 days sick off. 30.Finally vide letter dated 9th February 2025, the petitioner allegedly informed the Sub-County Commander Kajiado North through the OCS Ongata Rongai Police Station about his sickness. 31.The letter contained a detailed history since 2011 to the last visit to the doctor on 3rd February 2025. The letter was not signed and had no acknowledgement of receipt. It was also unclear as to whether the letter had any annexures. 32.It is common ground that the petitioner has a daughter aged nine or about (9 1/2) years but who was diagnosed with cerebral palsy at the age of 3 years and was issued with a Disability Registration Certificate by the National Council for Persons with Disabilities on 20th June 2024. The petitioner annexed documents showing that the daughter was attended to at Gertrude’s Children Hospital in April 2020, November and December 2020 and Kenyatta National Hospital in November 2020 where the diagnosis was made. 33.The gravamen of this case is whether the petitioner’s deployment to Kariene Police Station in Meru violated his constitutional rights as well as those of his daughter and whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought. 34.First although the petitioner cited not less than eleven (11) provisions of the Constitution of Kenya as the grounding of the petition, the dearth of facts of the alleged violations is puzzlingly, which raises the question whether the instant petition met the threshold of precision enunciated in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (1976 – 1980) KLR 1272 that:Where a party alleges violation of constitutional rights, he is required to demonstrate, with a reasonable degree of precision, the provision of the constitution violated and the manner of such violation or infringement. See Ogot & 5 others v Kiamokama Tea Factory & another (2023) KECA 825 (KLR) Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others (2013) eKLR. 35.Based on the evidence on record, the court finds that the instant petition did not meet the test of precision as enunciated in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (Supra) and subsequent cases. 36.As to whether the petitioner was transferred to Kariene Police Station or deployed, parties appear to have used the terms interchangeably which is not the case. 37.Neither the provisions of the National Police Act nor the National Police Service Commission Act define the terms ‘’transfer’’ or ‘’deployment’’ Under Section 10 (1) of the National Police Service Act the Inspector General of Police is empowered to:(g)determine the distribution and deployment of officers in the service in the rank of superintendent and below.(ga)recommend to the Commission and County Policing Authorities for the distribution and deployment of officers above the rank of superintendent. 38.Under Regulation 2 of the National Police Service Commission (Transfers and Deployments) Regulations, 2015 transfer;“means the relocation of an officer from the current duty station to a new duty station and matters relating to the officer including the payment of the officer is removed to the new duty station.” 39.Deployment on the other hand is defined as;“The temporary movement of an officer from one station to another, to undertake a specific assignment for a period not exceeding three months and in which the pay point remains at the original station in which the officer was initially posted prior to the deployment” 40.Significantly, the power to transfer police officers in the National Police Service is vested in the National Police Service Commission by Article 246 (3)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya. 41.Under Regulation 3, upon being appointed in the service, an officer may from time to time be transferred from one station to another station as the Commission may determine and a transfer shall not be used as disciplinary sanction or reward measure. 42.An officer serving in the National Police Service is legally deemed to have agreed to work in any place in Kenya and an officer shall be considered for transfer after having served in a duty station for a continuous period of at least one year and a maximum period of 3 years and a transfer must be just and fair. 43.An officer is at liberty to apply in writing for a transfer or objection to an intended transfer on medical or compassionate grounds for consideration by the Commission. 44.Under Regulation 8 of the Regulations, the mandate to deploy officers lies with the Inspector General who may deploy officers from time to time or an a need basis for a period not exceeding three months but may be extended but shall not exceed one year and if it does exceed one year the Commission shall consider transferring the officer. Similarly, any further extension of the deployment requires approval by the Commission. 45.Puzzling, the Marching Orders dated 20th June 2025 used the terms Deployment and Transfer. However, the letter by the Deputy Inspector General dated 13th June, 2025, was explicit that it was a Deployment, but it is notable that it had no prescribed duration for the deployment. It is surmisable that the leadership of the National Police have been using the restricted power to deploy officers for particular purposes to transfer them yet the power of transfer is constitutionally vested in the National Police Service Commission. 46.The petitioner’s uncontroverted evidence is that he served at Pangani Police Station before being transferred to Kasarani Police Station in December 2019, then to Fortternan Police station in Kericho County in November 2021 followed by Gataka Police Post Ongata Rongai, Kajiado County in November 2023. No other transfer/deployment has taken effect arising from this petition. 47.Intriguingly, the petitioner did not disclose his station of duty before Pangani Police Station and how long he was at the Pangani Police Station which in the court view was essential. 48.In summary, the petitioner’s movement was as follows;Kasarani Police Station to Fortternan Police Station about 2 years, Fortternan Police Station to Gataka Police Post Ongata Rongai about 2 years, Gataka Police Post to Kariene Police Station, Meru County, 1 year and 7 months. 49.Under Regulation 5 of the National Police Service Commission (Transfers and Deployments) Regulations:(1)…(3)Subject to Paragraph (4) in order to be considered for a transfer, an officer shall be required to have serviced in a duty station for a continuous period of at least one year and a maximum of three years.2.Despite subsection (3), the Commission may in exceptional circumstances determine an officer’s transfer without due regard to the period prescribed in paragraph (3). 50.Applying these provisions to the circumstances of the instant case, it is discernible that the 3rd and 4th Respondents acted in accord with the law and the Regulations. 51.Contrary to the petitioner’s assertion, there was no verifiable evidence to show that either the 3rd or the 4th or both deployed the petitioner on disciplinary grounds. No allegation of misconduct had allegedly been made against the petitioner by his supervisor or that the two were incompatible bearing in mind that the petitioner had served at the Gataka Police Post, Ongata Rongai for about 1 year and 7 months prior to the proposed deployment/transfer to Kariene Police Station. 52.The complaint against the O.C.P.D Kasarani Police Station dated 25th November 2021 lacked persuasion and probative value in this case for the simple reason that it related to a former police station and is presumed to have been acted upon having been made almost four (4) years ago. 53.From the evidence on record, the court finds that petitioner’s deployment/transfer by the 3rd and 4th Respondents did not violate any of his constitutional rights or fundamental freedoms. 54.Be that as it may, the more critical issue for determination is whether the proposed transfer to Kariene Police Station in Meru violated the petitioner’s rights as well as those of his child. 55.In the case of the petitioner, the matter is fairly straight forward and the only question for determination is whether the petitioner had availed medical records to the 3rd and 4th Respondents to demonstrate the state of his health. 56.All the documents filed herein and others ought to have been availed to the respondents as and when the visitation or admission to hospital or off-days were granted. 57.In his Supporting Affidavit the Petitioner did not indicate that copies of the documents in court were availed to the respondents and when. 58.Relatedly, some of the documents relied upon were contradictory. As adverted to earlier, documents on record show that that petitioner was attended to at two health facilities in different counties and had the official stamped of one health facility. While Kihara Sub-District Hospital is in Gachie Kiambu County, Mlolongo Health Centre is in Machakos County, 345 kms apart. The petitioner secured 5 off days from the Mlolongo Health Centre and the letter dated 13th December 2014 had no evidence of the petitioner having been attended to at the institution on that date or any other date. 59.It is trite law that it is the duty of the employee to furnish the employer with all medical evidence and sick off sheets she/he may have obtained, from health institutions after being attended to on an working day, within a reasonable time for accountability and enable the employer appreciate the employee’s health status, failing which the employee is estopped from alleging otherwise. 60.Finally, the petitioner did not adduce evidence to demonstrate that the prescribed drugs for his chronic ailment were inaccessible in places other than Nairobi. Contrary to the petitioner’s averment, the prescription and directions from Central Memorial Hospital Ltd, Thika dated 3rd February 2025 did not suggest that the petitioner could not be transferred or deployed. It was exclusively on his duties being light, avoid strenuous work, night shift and 3 sick off days. 61.It is trite law that transfer of employees is the employer’s management prerogative subject to the policies and procedures of the organization, rules or regulations and courts seldom interfere with its exercise. 62.The employer is obviously better placed to make decisions on transfer. It is aware of the tasks to be executed, where, how and when and the human capacity at its disposal, facts the court would not have. 63.The Kenya Police Service renders public service throughout the country and have a presence in the country including places the petitioner pejoratively described as remote. The justification for this is simple. Police services are required in all places and the available resources ought to be distributed as equitably as possible paying close attention to the need. 64.While the National Police Service Commission has the constitutional power to transfer police officers, the Inspector General has power to deploy those from the rank of Superintendent and below. 65.Analogous to civil servants and other public officers, all employees of the Government and its agencies and bodies are transferable to any part of Kenya where such services are necessary, and though typically initiated by the employer, it can be initiated by the employee as well. 66.Guided by the mantra that he who alleges must prove his/her allegations, it is the finding of the court that the petitioner has failed to evidentiary demonstrate that his transfer from Gataka Police Post violated any of his rights or fundamental freedoms and had rendered services in various police stations since 2011 when his condition was diagnosed, about fifteen (15) years ago. 67.Nothing turns on this issue. 68.The most persuasive case, however, is the petitioner’s indisposed child who requires constant care and attention from its parents. As adverted to elsewhere in this judgment, the petitioner’s daughter who is now over 8 ½ years has congenital cerebral palsy and epilepsy which are debilitating conditions which subjects parents to additional parental and care and responsibilities to the child. 69.The uncontested birth certificate on record for one Rishan Wambui Mwangi leave no doubt that the petitioner is the father of the child. 70.Article 53 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya, provides;(i)Every child has the right –(a)…(b)…(c)…(d)…(e)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;Section 53 (2) provides:A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child. 71.These provisions underline the legal position that where matters concerning a child are under consideration, the best interests of the child rank high on the list of circumstances to be considered and thus impacts on the decisions. 72.Section 8 of the Children Act expounds on the principle of best interests of the child as follows;(i)In all actions concerning, children, whether undertaken by the public in private, social, welfare institutions, courts, administrative authorities or legislative bodies –(a)The best interests of the child shall be primary consideration.(b)The best interests of the child shall include but shall not be limited to the considerations set out in the first Schedule(c)All judicial and administrative institutions and all persons acting in the name of such institutions when exercising any powers conferred under this Act or any other written law shall treat the interests of the child as the first and paramount consideration to the extent that this is consistent with adopting a course of action calculated to-(a)Safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of the child;(b)Conserve and promote the welfare of the child;(c)Secure for the child such guidance and correction as is necessary for the welfare of the child, and in the public interest;(d)In any matters affecting a child, the child shall be accorded an opportunity to express their opinion and that opinion shall be taken into account in appropriate cases having regard to the child’s age and degree of maturity.Unser section 11 of the Act –(i)Every child has the right to parental care and protection(ii)Except as is otherwise provided under this Act every child has the right to live with his or her parents. 73.Under Section 16 of the Act, every child has the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical, mental and psychological health. 74.Similarly, under Article 54 of the Constitution of Kenya,(i)A person with any disability is entitled-(a)To be treated with dignity and respect and to be addressed and referred to in a manner that is not demeaning.(b)To access educational institutions and facilities for persons with disabilities that are integrated into society to the event compatible with the interests of the person;(c)To reasonable access to all places, public transport and information.(d)To use sign language, Braille or other appropriate means of communication and(e)To access material and devices to overcome constrains arising from the persons with disability 75.The provisions of Article 53 of the Constitution are further complemented by the provisions of the Children Act while the provision of Article 53 above are complemented and elaborated by the persons with disabilities Act. 76.Concerning what constitutes best interests of the child, in MAK v RMAA & 4 others (2022) KESC 21 (KLR), the Supreme Court held:The children’s rights legal regime (the Constitution, Children Act (repealed) CRC and the Africa Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child) emphasizes the centrality of the best interest of the child. The best interest of the child is determined by the circumstances of the case as they specifically relate to the child. This comprises the principles that prime the child’s right to survival, protection, participation and development above other considerations and included the rights contemplated under article 53 (1) of the constitution. The focus has to be on the child and what was best for the child”There was no hierarchy in the children’s rights provided for under the law. All the rights provided under article 53 were the child’s best interest. The “best interest” concept was further strengthened by being the paramount consideration. The best interests of the child were to be the determining factor when making a decision on the child” 77.It is trite that the correlative of a right is a duty and where a child is concerned the parent or parents shoulder the duty. 78.Contrary to the Respondents’ submission that the petitioner did not disclose whether the child’s mother was unable or incapable of taking care of the child, the Constitution of Kenya is unambiguous that the rights to parental care and protection of a child is realized when both parents share in the responsibilities, and what makes it critical in the instant case, is the fact that the child is in need of more than care and protection, which imposes a heavy burden on the parents and exceedingly onerous for one parent. 79.In the circumstances, the court is satisfied that transferring the petitioner to Kariene Police Station in Meru County would adversely impact of the child’s rights to parental care and protection and increase the burden on the mother. 80.In his application for rescission of the transfer to Kariene Police Station the petitioner cited medical and compassionate grounds namely; his daughter’s disabilities and access to medical care and his health challenges. 81.As adverted to elsewhere in this judgment the letter on record lacks a date, authentication and addressee. 82.Be that as it may, in their Replying Affidavit sworn by Mr. Silas Andiema the 3rd and 4th Respondents did not disclose what they considered in rejecting the petitioner’s application for rescission of transfer. 83.In the courts view, the child’s debilitating conditions ought to have been considered in determining where the petitioner would be transferred to and it additionally behooved the petitioner to demonstrate his day--today role in the child’s care to show that his presence was necessary on a daily basis weekly basis. 84.From the record, it is unclear as to what evidence he availed to the Respondents in pleading his case. The court is however not persuaded that the transfer was unfair or unreasonable in the circumstances or a violation of any constitutional right or fundamental freedom as adverted earlier. 85.On reliefs the court proceeds as follows;Having held as above, the declaration that the transfer to Kariene Police Station in Meru was unfair is unmerited. Similarly, the court is not persuaded that 3rd and 4th Respondents violated the petitioners’ daughters’ rights under Article 53 and 54 of the Constitution of Kenya or subjected him to unfair working conditions. 86.In the end, the orders that commend themselves are;a.The petitioner shall re-submit his application for rescission of his transfer to Kariene Police Station in Meru.b.The 3rd and 4th Respondents shall consider all the relevant circumstances including the petitioner’s disabled child, the petitioner’s health condition and determine his application.c.For the avoidance of doubt all other prayers are declined.Parties shall bear their own cots. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI ON THIS 31ST JULY, 2026.DR. JACOB GAKERIJUDGEOrderIn view of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court has been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes.DR. JACOB GAKERIJUDGE