https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1928

Muchiri v National Police Service & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E240 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1928 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1928 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Petition E240 of 2025 JW Keli, J July 3, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 27, 28, 41 AND 246(3)a OF THEЕ 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 Ernest Muchiri Petitioner and The National Police Service 1st Respondent The Inspector General of Police 2nd Respondent The Commandant Traffic Department 3rd Respondent Judgment 1.The petitioner was a serving police officer, attached to the Gatundu South Traffic base for 4 months following transfer from the Traffic Kigumo base on the 25th April 2025, when he was again transferred to the Tourist Police Unit, Isiolo base. Being aggrieved by the subsequent transfer, he appealed the decision, which was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General. The petitioner then filed the instant petition dated 17th November 2025 and sought for the following relief –(a)A Declaration that the Respondents' actions, including unwarranted transfers and the harassment of the Petitioner, constitute violations of Articles 27, 28, and 41 and 246 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and the National Police Service Act, 2011 as read together with the National Police Service Commission (Transfers and Deployments) Regulations, 2015.(b)A Declaration that the transfer of the Petitioner to the Tourist Police Unit (TPU) Isiolo is unlawful, irregular, and in violation of Article 10(2) b and Article 246(3) (a) of the Constitution 2010 as read with Section 46 of the National Police Service Act, Regulations 3,4 and 5 of the National Police Service Commission (Transfers and Deployments) Regulations, 2015 and Chapter 72 of the National Police Standing Orders.(c)An Order of Certiorari quashing the unlawful transfer of the Petitioner and reinstating him to his current position at the Gatundu South Traffic Base.(d)An Order restraining the Respondents, whether by themselves, their agents, or any persons acting under their direction, from further transferring, harassing, victimizing, or subjecting the Petitioner to unfair labour practices without justifiable cause and due process.(e)An Order of general damages directing the Respondents to compensate the Petitioner for the violation of his Constitutional Rights.(f)An Order for the costs of this Petition to be borne by the Respondents.(g)Any Other relief that this Honourable Court may deem just and fit to grant in the interest of justice. 2.The petitioner filed an affidavit sworn on 17th November 2025 in support of the petition. The petitioner attached the transfer letter from Kigumo Traffic Base to Gatundu South Traffic Base dated 10th August 2025, an appeal against the transfer from Gatundu South Traffic Base to TPU Isiolo, a letter of interdiction from duty while at Kigumo Traffic Base, a show cause notice issued while at Kigumo Traffic Base, a response to the show cause, a notification of disciplinary inquiry while at Kigumo Traffic Base, and a warning letter dated 30th October 2024 following disciplinary action. Additionally, there is a transfer letter from Kigumo Traffic Base to Gatundu South Traffic Base dated 25th April 2025, a confirmation of report to the station on the same date, and communication regarding the decline of the appeal against transfer to Tourist Police Unit (TPU) Isiolo Base. 3.The petition was opposed by the respondent vide replying affidavit of Silas Andiema dated 28th January 2026 who annexed documents in support of the response. The Petitioner’s case in summary 4.The Petitioner’s case is that he was enlisted into the National Police Service on 1st November 1995 and served diligently, with a clean disciplinary record, in various stations including Wajir County which was his first deployment upon successful completion of his training, Siaya County, Embu County, Muranga County police headquarters, Kigumo Traffic Base in Murang'a County, Gatundu Traffic Base, amongst other service areas. 5.The Petitioner avers that the crux of this dispute is that on 15th April 2025, he was transferred to Gatundu Traffic Base, and served at this station for only about four (4) months when he received a letter from the County Traffic Enforcement Officer communicating a decision by the Deputy Inspector General dated 28th August 2025 to transfer him from Gatundu South Traffic Base to Tourist Police Unit in Isiolo (TPU Isiolo). 6.The Petitioner challenges the decision to transfer him to the Tourist Police Unit in Isiolo (TPU Isiolo) for being in violation of Chapter 72 of the National Police Service Standing Orders on TRANSFER AND DEPLOYMENT. In particular, he pleads that paragraph 6(2) provides that in order to be considered for a transfer, an officer shall serve in a duty station continuously for at least one year and a maximum period of three years. He confirms that he only served at the Gatundu South Traffic Base for about four months prior to his transfer to TPU Isiolo. In addition, Clause 8(2) (b) provides that an officer of the rank of Constable shall not be deployed to operational areas if he or she is above 40 years of age. The Petitioner states that he is fifty-three (53) years of age at the time of the purported transfer to TPU Isiolo. Further, Clause 8(3) provides that an officer who has served in operation areas and has completed their deployment in the area shall not be transferred to serve in such areas at a later date. The Petitioner confirms that he served in Wajir County at the height of the Shifta wars from 1996 until the year 2000. 7.The Petitioner also argues that his transfer contravenes Regulations 3, 4 and 5 of the National Police Service Commission (Transfers and Deployments) Regulations, 2015; as well as Articles 10 (2), 24, 27, 41 of the Constitution. According to the Petitioner, his transfer from Gatundu South Traffic Base is marred with irregularities and is not justifiable, and the same can only have been actuated by malice. He states that his transfer to Gatundu South Traffic Base having followed due process, he can only be transferred to another station by following due process as laid down in Article 246 of the Constitution as read with Chapter 72 of the Standing Orders. Notably, the Petitioner avers that he has not been informed of any exigencies warranting his sudden transfer from the Gatundu South Traffic Base to a hardship/operational area for the second time in his years of service, and in his sunset years when he only remains with about seven (7) years of service. 8.The Petitioner classifies his transfer to the TPU Isiolo as irregular, illegal, unprocedural, and contrary to fair labour practices, and states that the constant transfers and threats will cause his family to suffer immense psychological torture and disruption of family life and his children’s education. The Petitioner avers that the transfer is imminent, since the practice of the National Police Service is that once a transfer letter is issued, the officer is required to report to the new station immediately, leaving no room for redress. Once he has picked his Marching Orders, the transfer stands complete as per the provisions of the National Police Service Standing Orders. Respondent's case in brief 9.The Respondent confirmed that the Petitioner is its employee, having been enlisted into the Kenya Police Service on 1st September 1995. They state that their records show that the Petitioner has not earned any award, commendation, or promotion during his thirty (30) years of service, and instead has two (2) disciplinary convictions and a Warning Letter on record. The most recent infraction occurred when the Petitioner was performing traffic law enforcement duties for the week ending 30th March 2024, and was captured on video collecting bribe monies from boda boda riders and Public Service Vehicle operators along the Kangari-Kigumo Road. The video came to the Respondents’ attention after it was circulated widely on social media platforms and attracted public condemnation and calls for action against the Petitioner. 10.It is averred that consequently, and in accordance with the law, the Petitioner was interdicted from duty vide a letter reference KPS/DIG/CENT/GEN/31/VOL.IV/12 dated 16th April 2024 to allow for disciplinary proceedings. The Petitioner was subsequently charged with the following disciplinary offences: Being negligent in the performance of his duties contrary to Section 88 of the National Police Service Act as read with the Eighth Schedule 1(6); and Committing an act amounting to corruption under a law in force in Kenya contrary to Section 88(a) of the National Police Service Act as read with Eighth Schedule l(aa). After the disciplinary proceedings, the Petitioner was found guilty on both counts and fined Kshs. 3,905/= on each count, totalling Kshs. 7,810/=, which amount was recovered from his salary. In addition, it was decided that he be redeployed out of the Traffic Unit and issued with a Warning Letter reference KPS/DIG/CENT /HRM/14/VOL 18/01 dated 30th October 2024. To give effect to the decision of the disciplinary panel, the interdiction was lifted and the Petitioner was redeployed from Gatundu Traffic Base to Tourist Police Unit, lsiolo Base. 11.It is admitted that the Petitioner sought variation of the redeployment vide a letter dated 10th September 2025 which request was duly considered and lawfully declined by the Deputy Inspector General. The Petitioner was thereafter issued with Marching Orders and instructed to report to Isiolo Tourist Police Unit Base, thereby being removed from the duty roster. The Respondents emphasize that the Petitioner’s redeployment was administrative in nature, lawful, and not punitive as alleged. 12.On the transfer of the Petitioner from Kigumo Traffic Base to Gatundu Traffic Base, the Respondents aver that this was a temporary removal arising from an administrative decision taken by the County Traffic Enforcement Officer to preserve public confidence in the Service, it being inappropriate to redeploy the Petitioner to the same Station where the corrupt conduct occurred while the video was still in circulation. 13.The Respondents deny violating Paragraph 6(2) of Chapter 72 of the Service Standing Orders and the National Police Service Commission (Transfers and Deployments) Regulations, and state that it cannot be used to shield an officer who has been found guilty of disciplinary offences involving corruption. In any event, they state that the Tourist Police Unit, which the Petitioner has been transferred to, is mandated to provide security to tourists, hotels, and related facilities and is not engaged in bandit operations as claimed by the Petitioner. They further deny that the Petitioner’s family life and children’s education will be disrupted by the transfer and rely on the Petitioner's own records, specifically a letter dated 25th July 2017 where he disclosed that he had two (2) children, namely Krista Nkatha (born 7th November 1998) and Myers Kendi (born 3rd December 2002), both of whom are now adults. 14.It is averred that the Petitioner’s redeployment was lawful, reasonable, and consistent with Article 244 of the Constitution which mandates the National Police Service to uphold professionalism, discipline, transparency, accountability, and to prevent corruption. It was also in line with the Petitioner's Letter of Appointment dated 11th March 1996 which expressly provides that the employee is liable to be posted to any station within Kenya to discharge the usual duties of his office, hence according to them, the Petitioner is estopped from contesting the lawful redeployment, particularly following disciplinary convictions. Determination 15.The court directed the petition be canvassed by way of written submissions. Issues for determination 16.In his submissions dated 6th May 2025 (sic), the Petitioner submitted generally on the Petition. 17.On their part, the Respondents identified the following issues for determination in their submissions dated 17th March 2026:-i.Whether the Petitioner’s redeployment was lawful and procedurally compliant within the constitutional and statutory framework governing the National Police Service.ii.Whether the Petitioner has established violation of Articles 10, 24, 27, 41 and 47 of the Constitution and the governing police deployment framework.iii.Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought, including conservatory relief restraining the redeployment. 18.The court discerned the issues for determination in the petition to be -a.Whether the transfer before lapse of 1 year of deployment was illegal and unfairb.Whether the transfer violated the petitioner's constitutional rightsc.Whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought Whether the transfer before lapse of 1 year of deployment was illegal and unfair 19.The facts were not in dispute. The petitioner was deployed from Traffic Kigumo base to Gatundu South traffic base following a disciplinary process on allegations of traffic corruption, for which he was warned and fined. The petitioner had barely lasted 4 months at Gatundu when he received a transfer to TPU Isiolo. The petitioner challenged the transfer vide appeal dated 10th September 2025 which was declined by the respondents. The challenge of the transfer is premised on 4 grounds namely-a.The petitioner is a police constableb.He had only 7 years of service left, being 53 years oldc.He had previously served in the operation area (Wajir) from 1993 to 2000; andd.Had only served at Gatundu South traffic base for 3 months. 20.The Internal appeal was rejected by the respondents, and a communication to that effect was sent to the petitioner by the Kiambu County Traffic Enforcement Officer vide letter dated 5th November 2025.The petitioner invoked the provisions of CHAPTER 72 of the National Police Service Standing Orders on transfer and deployment, which provides for the transfer of police officers to operational areas. Clause 8(2)b provides that an officer of the rank of Constable shall not be deployed to operational areas if he or she is above 40 years of age. The Petitioner is fifty-three (53) years of age at the time of this purported transfer to TPU Isiolo. Further Clause 8(3) provides that an officer who has served in operation areas and has completed their deployment in the area shall not be transferred to serve in such areas at a later date. The Petitioner served in Wajir County at the height of the Shifta wars from 1996 until the year 2000. 21.On this issue of operational areas, the respondent contended that the TPU Isiolo was a Tourist Police Unit and is mandated to provide security to tourists, hotels, and related facilities and is not engaged in bandit operations as alleged. Chapter 72 paragraph 8 of the service standing orders ,provides as follows:-‘8.Transfers to operational areas(1)The Inspector-General shall, in consultation with the Cabinet Secretary, determine areas to be designated as operational areas.(2)In case of a vacancy in the office of subordinate officers, in operational areas, respective services and the directorate shall select officers based on the following criteria—(a)Non Commissioned Officers shall not be forty five years and above; and(b)Constable shall not be forty years and above.(3)The Inspector-General and the Commission shall, where possible, ensure that subordinate officers are not re-deployed to operational areas after completion of their first tour of duty.’ (emphasis given) 22.It is true the petitioner is over 40 years, and is a police constable. The respondent did not dispute that he had in the past been deployed in the operational area, Wajir. The court finds the petitioner met the threshold not to be deployed to an area designated as an operational area , being a police constable in rank, 53 years and having served in Wajir. However , the respondent stated that TPU Isiolo is not an operational deployment as it deals with tourists and not bandits. The challenge for the court was that the petitioner did not provide evidence of TPU Isiolo having been designated as operation area as provided under paragraph 8 (1) to wit- ‘ 1)The Inspector-General shall, in consultation with the Cabinet Secretary, determine areas to be designated as operational areas’. The court then found the position of the respondents that the TPU Isiolo was not an operational area was not challenged. The burden was on the petitioner to prove TPU Isiolo had been designated as an operational area. It is trite that he who alleges proves. The court then finds that the position of the employer that the Tourist Police Unit Isiolo is not an operational area is unchallenged and being a tourist unit, the court believed the respondent. The court did not believe that dealing with tourists was a hardship for the service. The petitioner had the burden to convince the court by evidence of the area being designated as an operational area, and he failed to do so. 23.The Petitioner avers that under Chapter 72, paragraph 6(2) of the National Police Service Standing Orders, to be considered for a transfer, an officer shall serve in a duty station continuously for at least one year and a maximum period of three years. On this issue, the respondent contended that, having been informed of corruption at the traffic department, after the warning and fine, a decision was made to transfer the petitioner out of the traffic department. That the transfer from Kigumo to Gatundu was an administrative measure. Chapter 72 of the National Police Service standing orders paragraph 6 provides conditions of transfer as follows-‘6.Conditions for transfers of officers(1)An officer appointed in the Service shall be deemed to have agreed to serve in any place in Kenya and transfers shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment in the Service.(2)In order to be considered for a transfer, an officer shall serve in a duty station continuously for at least one year and a maximum period of three years.(3)In exceptional circumstances the Commission may determine an officer’s transfer without due regard to the period described in paragraph 6(2).(4)The Inspector-General shall ensure that an officer being transferred shall be adequately facilitated where applicable.’ The court considered the history of the case. It was uncontested fact that the Petitioner was performing traffic law enforcement duties for the week ending 30th March 2024, and was captured on video collecting bribe monies from boda boda riders and Public Service Vehicle operators along the Kangari-Kigumo Road. The Respondent stated that the video came to their attention after it was circulated widely on social media platforms and attracted public condemnation and calls for action against the Petitioner. It was not in dispute that the petitioner was convicted by the employer following a disciplinary process for the incident. The petitioner did not appeal against the conviction and sentence. The employer states that the 1-year general rule is qualified and that the transfer was within the qualification of exceptional circumstances to preserve public confidence in the traffic service. It was not in dispute the incident of the bribe was captured on video and circulated widely. The court finds that it was reasonable for the employer to remove the petitioner from the traffic base and move him to the tourist service to restore the public confidence in the traffic service as stated. I do find that the transfer in the circumstances was not a disciplinary measure which is prohibited under chapter 72 paragraph 1(2), to wit- ‘2)Transfers shall not be used as a disciplinary sanction or reward measure.’’ The court further notes that paragraph 6 must be read in whole and that includes subparagraph 1 to wit- ‘(1)An officer appointed in the Service shall be deemed to have agreed to serve in any place in Kenya and transfers shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment in the Service.’ Transfer remains a management prerogative subject to the legal requirements and safeguards under Chapter 72 (supra). The court is persuaded that the decision of the respondents was legal and in the interest of promoting public confidence in the traffic service. That conviction decision has not been set aside, and thus it can be said that the petitioner cannot be trusted with a traffic base that is vulnerable to bribes from motorists seeking to avoid prosecution for traffic offences. It is reasonable for the employer to remove the petitioner from the traffic department. I find the transfer decision met the exceptional circumstance of the transfer before the lapse of the 1 year of service at Gatundu South traffic base. Whether the petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated in the transfer 24.The Petitioner asserted that the Respondents have violated his constitutional and legal rights in the following manner:-. Violation of Article 27 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Equality and Freedom from Discrimination): The Petitioner has been unfairly singled out for victimization and subjected to repeated transfers without just cause, while other officers in similar positions have been allowed to serve uninterrupted in their postings. The arbitrary and punitive treatment by the Respondents, amounts to discrimination against the Petitioner on personal grounds, contrary to Article 27(1),(2) and (4) of the Constitution 2010, which prohibits discrimination on any grounds. The Petitioner's transfer was driven by personal vendetta rather than lawful service considerations, contrary to provisions of Article 27 on non-discrimination. Article 27 of the Constitution states, in part- ‘27. Equality and freedom from discrimination(1)Every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.(2)Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms.(3)Women and men have the right to equal treatment, including the right to equal opportunities in political, economic, cultural and social spheres.(4)The State shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground, including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth.’ 25.The court holds that it is not sufficient to invoke the constitutional provisions alleged to have been violated. The manner of the violations must be pleaded with precision. It was held in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] KEHC 30 (KLR) paragraph 5 ‘c). We would, however, again emphasise that if a person is seeking redress from the High Court on a matter involving a reference to the Constitution, it is important (if only to ensure that justice is done to his case) that he should outline with a reasonable degree of clarity what he complains about, the provisions said to be infringed, and the manner in which they are alleged to be infringed.’ The decision has been upheld by all superior courts in Kenya. 26.In this case, the petitioner alleged discrimination and victimization, claiming that other officers in similar positions had been allowed to serve uninterrupted in their postings. The court found that the transfer of less than a year was only proven with respect to the Gatundu South traffic base transfer. The court agreed with the respondent that the circumstances of the transfer was motivated by the promotion of public confidence in traffic service, particularly since the petitioner had been convicted of traffic bribery and a video circulated of his arrest. The court concluded that the decision met a reasonable employer test and further determined that the transfer was not a disciplinary action. The disciplinary process was complete. The petitioner did not present to the court a comparable case where his peer (s) were retained in the traffic service after similar circumstances. He who alleges proves. Having upheld the decision as lawful and justified, the court found that the discrimination claim fails. The allegations of discrimination are unfounded, and the claim thus fails the test set out in Anarita Karimi (supra). 27.The petitioner further pleaded violation of Article 41 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Fair Labour Practices). It was submitted that the Petitioner's arbitrary transfers, which were not based on any administrative necessity, constitute unfair labour practices. The disruption of the Petitioner's career progression and family stability due to continuous unwarranted transfers infringes on his right to fair working conditions. It infringes on his right to reasonable working conditions protected under Article 41(2)b of the Constitution 2010. The violation of the Standing Orders on deployment of Police Constable officers over the age of 40 years amounts to a violation of the 1st Respondent's own workplace regulations. He further pleaded violation of Article 24 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. The unprocedural transfer of the Petitioner to the TPU Isiolo amounts to an unjust limitation of his right to fair labour practices, which includes the right to reasonable working conditions. The Petitioner has been deprived of his statutory right to fair and dignified treatment as a police officer. The court already dealt with the issue of whether the transfer violated the condition of transfer of an officer under Chapter 72 of the National Police Service Standing Orders. 28.The petitioner further alleged that the decision would affect his five children education and family stability. He urged that the impugned transfer did not take into account the fact that the Petitioner is a family man. He is raising children who deserve some semblance of stability for them to be able to enjoy their right to education and a stable upbringing. The petitioner relied on the decision in Republic v Deputy Inspector General Of National Police Service & 2 others Ex-Parte Pc Stephen Mathenge [2015] KEHC 5948 (KLR) the court stated as follows:- ‘ It is trite law that persons charged with statutory powers and duty ought to exercise the same reasonably and fairly and that the discretion ought not to be used whimsically, unreasonably and arbitrarily. If the discretion is used arbitrarily and unreasonably, the court may step in to remedy the situation. In the preamble to the Constitution, the people of Kenya committed themselves inter alia to nurturing and protecting the well-being of the individual, the family, communities and the nation.’ In Olum & Another vs. Attorney General (2) [1995-1998] 1 EA 258, it was held that although the national objectives and directive principles of State policy are not on their own justiciable, they and the preamble of the Constitution should be given effect wherever it is fairly possible to do so without violating the meaning of the words used. To emphasise the importance the Constitution attaches to the family, Article 45(1) of the Constitution provides as follows: The family is the natural and fundamental unit of society and the necessary basis of social order, and shall enjoy the recognition and protection of the State. Article 3(1) of the Constitution enjoins every person to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution. Therefore in exercising its statutory powers the executive ought to ensure that its action is geared towards the recognition and protection of the family unit as far as is practicable. To take actions that would place the family unit in jeopardy would be clearly contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. To fail to take into account the need to recognise and protect the family, therefore, amounts in my view to failure to take into account a relevant factor. Where an officer is exercising statutory power, he must direct himself properly in law and procedure and must consider all matters which are relevant and avoid extraneous matters. See Council of Civil Service Union vs. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) AC 374; Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd vs. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223. To transfer a public officer without taking into account his family obligations not only affects the officer but his family as well such as the right to education as enshrined under Article 43 of the Constitution. By failing to consider the foregoing the Respondents’ decision was irrational. Whereas the applicant could properly be transferred from one station to another such transfer ought to have taken into account all relevant factors including family obligations and its protection. Further in Namu v National Police Service Commission & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E005 of 2023)the court further held that; However, the frequent deployments which do not allow an officer to settle down to his new station in my view amounts to unfair labour practices. The deployments also do not recognize and protect the petitioner’s family, and are in fact adversely affecting the education of the petitioner’s minor children, who are school going. Even if an officer has executed an appointment or contract to serve anywhere in the country, the respondents have an obligation to act fairly taking into consideration all relevant factors before moving the office either on transfer or deployment. on. That this was what was meant to be achieved by the relevant force's Standing Orders. 29.Conversely, the respondents challenged the allegation regarding the five children and presented a letter from the petitioner stating that he had only two children, born in 1998 and 2002. 30.The court finds that the petitioner deliberately attempted to misled the court by claiming he had five children, yet he had written to his employer on 25th July 2017 stating he had two children and attaching their birth certificates. He did not provide proof of the five alleged children. This was a material non-disclosure. It is a maxim of equity that, he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. The petitioner came with dirty hands. The authority the petitioner relied on in Namu v National Police Service Commission & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E005 of 2023) was based on the needs of the children and their attendance at school. This was not applicable here, as the two declared children of the petitioner are both adults. The employer is recognised as the custodian of the employee records under section 74 of the Employment Act to wit- ‘1)An employer shall keep a written record of all employees employed by him, with whom he has entered into a contract under this Act ..’ The record was produced. The court found that the claim related to the children was not proved. 31.The court already upheld the decision regarding the transfer of the petitioner, which met the threshold of paragraph 6(3)(Chapter 72,supra), of the Service Standing Orders to wit-‘(3) In exceptional circumstances, the Commission may determine an officer’s transfer without regard to the period specified in paragraph 6(2).’ I have determined that the transfer was not a disciplinary matter but an administrative decision aimed at restoring public confidence in the traffic service. The court, having considered the petitioner’s case holistically, finds no violation of his constitutional rights as pleaded. The transfer was in accordance with the provisions of the National Police Service Standing Orders, Chapter 72, Rule 6, on the conditions for transferring officers. 32.In the upshot, the petition is held to lack merit and is dismissed. I make no order as to costs, the parties being in an active employment relationship. The file is marked as closed. 33.It is so Ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026.JEMIMAH KELI,JUDGE.In The Presence Of:Court Assistant: Otienopetitioner -absentRespondent – absent