[2012] KEHC 5421 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 5421 (KLR)

The court found that the petitioner, having been certified as a person with disability, was entitled under Section 15(6) of the Persons With Disabilities Act to retire at 60 years, not 55. The respondents were notified of his disability status but failed to respond or extend his retirement age, thereby disregarding statutory and constitutional protections against discrimination. The court held that this amounted to discrimination on grounds of disability, age, and health, violating Article 27(4) of the Constitution. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the petitioner was not vigilant, noting he had notified his superiors in writing. The court further held that while specific...

Citation
[2012] KEHC 5421 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: Fredrick Gitau Kimani; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: The Ministry for State & Provincial Administration & Internal Security; Respondent: The Police Commissioner
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
2 August 2012
Case Number
Petition 157 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition_allowed_in_part
Legal Topics
Disability Rights, Retirement Age, Employment Discrimination, Public Service Employment
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Employment and Labour Disability Rights Retirement Age Employment Discrimination Public Service Employment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fredrick Gitau Kimani

Petitioner

The Attorney General

Respondent

The Ministry for State & Provincial Administration & Internal Security

Respondent

The Police Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner was discriminated against on grounds of disability, age, and health in contravention of Article 27(4) of the Constitution and Section 15(6) of the Persons With Disabilities Act.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to extend the petitioner’s retirement age from 55 to 60 years constituted unlawful discrimination.
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for breach of his constitutional rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioner, having been certified as a person with disability, was entitled under Section 15(6) of the Persons With Disabilities Act to retire at 60 years, not 55. The respondents were notified of his disability status but failed to respond or extend his retirement age, thereby disregarding statutory and constitutional protections against discrimination. The court held that this amounted to discrimination on grounds of disability, age, and health, violating Article 27(4) of the Constitution. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the petitioner was not vigilant, noting he had notified his superiors in writing. The court further held that while specific...

Court Disposition

petition_allowed_in_part

Orders

  • Declaration that the petitioner’s right not to be discriminated against under Article 27(4)(5)(6) and (7) of the Constitution and Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been violated.
  • Declaration that failure by the 2nd and 3rd respondents to extend the petitioner’s retirement age from 55 to 60 years in disregard of Section 15(6) of the Persons With Disabilities Act amounted to discrimination on grounds of health, age, and disability.