https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2038

Mulogosi v Kenya Pipeline Ltd (Petition E018 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2038 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 2038 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret Petition E018 of 2025 MA Onyango, J July 3, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA UNDER ARTICLE 2, 10, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 33, 41, 47, 50, 73, 165, 232, 236 AND 258 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF UNFAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE PETITIONER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RESOURCE POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL OF THE KENYA PIPELINE COMPANY LIMITED, SECTION 13-RETIREMENT TRANSITION AND IN THE MATTER OF THE TRANSFER OF THE PETITIONER BY THE KENYA PIPELINE COMPANY LIMITED(KPC) AND IN THE MATTER OF BREACH TO REASONABLE WORKING CONDITIONS AND IN THE MATTER OF UNPROCEDURAL AND PUNITIVE REDEPLOYMENT OF THE PETITIONER WHO IS DUE FOR RETIREMENT IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS Between Philip Mulogosi Petitioner and Kenya pipeline Limited Respondent Judgment 1.The Petitioner instituted the present Petition dated 15th December 2025 against the Respondent seeking the following reliefs: -a.A declaration that the acts of the Respondents violated Article 41 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.b.A declaration that the Respondents violated Articles 27,28,41,47 and 232 of the Constitutionc.A declaration that the transfer is unconstitutional, unlawful, null and voidd.An order of certiorari quashing the transfere.An order of prohibition restraining enforcement of the transfer and any disciplinary measure against the Petitioner herein.f.An order of mandamus compelling fair determination of the Petitioner’s appealg.General damages for violation of constitutional rightsh.Compensation for emotional distress, inconveniences and loss occasioned by the unlawful actionsi.Costs of the Petitionj.Any other relief this Honourable Court deem just and expedientk.Costs of the Petition from the time of issuance of the transfer letter to the judgmentl.Any other order the court may deem fit to grant. The Petitioner’s case 2.The Petitioner is employed by the Respondent as a Chief Technician (Operations) and was, at all material times, stationed at Pump Station 27 (PS 27), Eldoret Terminal. He avers that on 24th June 2025, he was issued with a transfer letter by the Respondent redeploying him to Pump Station 10 (PS 10), Nairobi Terminal. 3.It is the Petitioner's case that the impugned transfer was effected without prior consultation, without disclosure of the reasons for the transfer and without regard to his personal circumstances, including his proximity to retirement and his settled home in Eldoret. 4.The Petitioner contends that immediately upon receiving the transfer letter, he lodged a formal appeal against the decision, citing, among other grounds, his impending retirement, personal circumstances and the absence of any justification for the transfer. 5.According to the Petitioner, the Respondent neither heard or determined the appeal, nor communicated any formal decision thereon. Instead, the Respondent continued issuing directives requiring him to report to the new duty station and threatened disciplinary action in the event of non-compliance. 6.The Petitioner further contends that no objective assessment, evaluation or rational criteria were undertaken or disclosed to justify his transfer. Consequently, he asserts that the Respondent's decision was arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and procedurally unfair, contrary to Articles 10, 41, 47 and 232 of the Constitution as well as sections 4 and 7 of the Fair Administrative Action Act. 7.The Petitioner avers that he is a long-serving employee who is due to retire within the next twelve months and has already undergone retirement preparation and transition training facilitated by the Respondent in accordance with its Human Resource Policy. He contends that employees within twelve to twenty-four months of retirement are, under the Respondent's Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual, entitled to participate in retirement transition programmes designed to facilitate counselling, training and stability at their existing work stations in preparation for retirement. 8.It is therefore the Petitioner's position that the impugned transfer was unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory, malicious and contrary to his legitimate expectation as well as the Respondent's own Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual. He maintains that the Respondent's failure to determine his appeal violated his constitutional right to fair administrative action. The Respondent’s Response 9.The Respondent opposed the Petition through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 30th January 2026 by Martin Mutoro Wanyama, its Operations Manager. 10.The Respondent avers that the Petitioner's transfer from PS 27 Eldoret to PS 10 Nairobi Terminal was undertaken pursuant to Clause 2.40 of the Kenya Pipeline Company Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual, 2019, which empowers the Respondent to deploy employees in accordance with operational requirements. 11.According to the Respondent, PS 10 Nairobi Terminal required highly skilled personnel to support critical operations and the commissioning of a new bottom loading facility and that owing to the Petitioner's technical expertise, the management considered him the most suitable officer for deployment to the station. 12.The Respondent further states that together with the transfer letter, the Petitioner was informed that he would be paid transfer allowance equivalent to thirty days' subsistence allowance amounting to Kshs.336,000/= to facilitate his relocation which amount was subsequently paid on 24th July 2025. 13.The Respondent asserts that the Petitioner lodged an appeal against the transfer on 1st July 2025 but maintains that employees are ordinarily expected to report to their new duty stations pending determination of any appeal in order to ensure continuity of operations. 14.The Respondent avers that by an email dated 4th September 2025, the Petitioner was informed that his appeal had been declined and was directed to report to Nairobi Terminal by 8th September 2025, failing which disciplinary action would be taken. It is contended that similar communications were subsequently issued on 7th September 2025, 9th September 2025 and 3rd October 2025. 15.It is the Respondent's case that despite the repeated communications, the Petitioner persistently declined to report to his new workstation and instead continued filing further appeals and requests for review, thereby disregarding lawful management directives and adversely affecting business continuity. 16.The Respondent further states that, notwithstanding the Petitioner's refusal to report to his assigned workstation, it continued paying his monthly salary, organised pre-retirement programmes for him and afforded him more than three months to reconsider his position before contemplating disciplinary action. 17.According to the Respondent, the Petitioner's conduct amounted to gross misconduct under Clause 11.7.1(c) of the Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual and section 44(4)(c) of the Employment Act. 18.Consequently, the Respondent urges the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs. The Petitioner’s Rejoinder 19.In response, the Petitioner filed a Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 13th February 2026 in which he substantially reiterated the averments contained in the Petition. 20.In response to the averment made by the Respondent that he failed to report to work following the transfer, the Petitioner maintains that despite the short notice, he reported to Nairobi and diligently discharged his duties in accordance with his professional responsibilities. He therefore contends that the allegation that he absented himself from duty while continuing to receive salary is false. 21.The Petitioner further asserts that, to date, the Respondent has never issued him with any formal written determination of his appeal dated 1st July 2025, his follow-up letter dated 24th July 2025, his subsequent correspondence dated 7th September 2025, his request for communication dated 3rd October 2025 or his formal grievance concerning the transfer and the alleged administrative misconduct. 22.The Petitioner further avers that, following the institution of these proceedings, this Court issued interim orders directing that the prevailing status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the Petition. That contrary to the orders, the Respondent withdrew, disabled and interfered with his system access privileges, operational rights and functional responsibilities within the Respondent's ICT and operational systems. He asserts that these actions effectively prevented him from discharging his official duties, occasioned professional embarrassment and psychological distress and were undertaken in blatant disregard of the Court's subsisting orders. 23.The Petitioner further avers that he stands to suffer irreparable prejudice, loss and detriment arising from the enforcement of what he terms as an unlawful, arbitrary and unconstitutional administrative decision made at the tail end of his public service. He contends that the impugned decision threatens his professional rights, accrued entitlements and legitimate expectations, and that the resulting prejudice cannot be adequately remedied by an award of damages. 24.Pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on 4th February 2026, the Petition was disposed of by way of written submissions. I have considered the Petitioner's submissions dated 13th February 2026 and the Respondent's submissions dated 2nd March 2026. The submissions largely reiterate the parties' respective pleadings and evidence on record and, therefore, need not be reproduced. Determination 25.Having carefully considered the Petition, the Response thereto, the Supplementary Affidavit, the evidence on record and the parties' written submissions, I am of the considered view that the following issues fall for determination: -i.Whether the Respondent's decision to transfer the Petitioner from PS 27 Eldoret Terminal to PS 10 Nairobi Terminal was lawful, fair and in accordance with the Constitution, the Employment Act and the Respondent's Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual.ii.Whether the Respondent violated the Petitioner's constitutional rights under Articles 27, 28, 41, 47 and 232 of the Constitution in effecting and implementing the impugned transfer.iii.Whether the Respondent failed to fairly determine the Petitioner's appeal against the transfer.iv.Whether the Respondent acted in breach of the interim orders of this Court by interfering with the Petitioner's system access, operational privileges and assigned duties.v.Whether the Respondent breached the Petitioner’s legitimate expectations.vi.Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Petition. Whether the Respondent's decision to transfer the Petitioner from PS 27 Eldoret Terminal to PS 10 Nairobi Terminal was lawful, fair and in accordance with the Constitution, the Employment Act and the Respondent's Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual. 26.The Petitioner contends that the impugned transfer was unlawful, arbitrary and procedurally unfair. He maintains that the Respondent neither consulted him nor disclosed the reasons necessitating the transfer. He further argues that the decision failed to take into account relevant considerations, including his proximity to retirement, his settled home in Eldoret and the Respondent's Retirement Transition Programme, which, according to him, envisages that employees within twelve to twenty-four months of retirement should be stabilized at their work stations to facilitate a smooth transition into retirement. 27.The Petitioner further submits that although he promptly lodged an appeal against the transfer, the Respondent failed to hear and determine it, insisting that he reports to the new station before the appeal is considered. He therefore contends that the transfer violated his legitimate expectation, the Respondent's Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual and his right to fair administrative action guaranteed under Article 47 of the Constitution. 28.The Respondent, on its part, maintains that the transfer was effected pursuant to Clause 2.40 of its Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual, which empowers it to deploy employees in accordance with operational requirements. It contends that PS 10 Nairobi Terminal, where the Petitioner was transferred to required highly skilled personnel to support its operations, including the commissioning of a new bottom loading facility and that owing to the Petitioner's expertise, he was identified as the most suitable officer for deployment. 29.The Respondent further submits that the Petitioner was facilitated to relocate through payment of transfer allowance amounting to Kshs.336,000/= and that his appeal against the transfer was considered and declined. It maintains that under its Human Resource Policy, employees are expected to comply with transfer instructions and report to their new duty stations pending the determination of any appeal so as not to disrupt the Respondent's operations. 30.According to the Respondent, despite numerous reminders and extensions of time, the Petitioner persistently declined to report to the new station, thereby disobeying lawful management instructions. 31.It is a settled fact that the transfer of employees falls within an employer's managerial prerogative. In the ordinary course of employment, an employer is entitled to organize its workforce, deploy employees and determine where their services are required, provided that such decisions are exercised lawfully, reasonably, in good faith and in accordance with the contract of employment, the employer's policies and the applicable law. 32.In the instant case, the Petitioner was transferred from PS 27 Eldoret Terminal to PS 10 Nairobi Terminal by a letter dated 24th June 2025 pursuant to Clause 2.40 of the Respondent's Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual. The manual provides as follows on transfers: -2. 40Staff Transfer2. 40.1The Company shall endeavor to transfer staff to stations where their skills are required based on business needs. It is therefore the Company policy that staff should be ready to work in any of its working stations both within and outside the country where relevant.2. 40.2The Company will transfer staff from time to time in response to the different business needs and to enhance staff skills through work exposure in difference stations.2. 40.3All transfers shall be initiated by the Head of Department in consultation with his Directorate head as well as the Human Resource & Administration Directorate Head for approval by Managing Director.2. 40.4….2. 40.5….2. 40.6….2. 40.7No transfer on Disciplinary groundsNo staff shall be transferred on any disciplinary grounds. Where disciplinary issues have been noted about an employee, they shall be handled independently without linking them to transfer on disciplinary grounds2. 40.8….2. 40.9Transfer on exigency of serviceAny proposed transfers due to exigencies of service will be discussed in the first instance between line managers and Head of Human Resources before formal Managing Director's approval is sought. Management will endeavour to consider the personal and social circumstances of the staff being transferred.2. 40.10Notification of transferUpon authorization, the Human Resource Manager shall issue a letter to the staff being transferred indicating the station to which he is being transferred to, the effective date and the person to whom he shall report to and any other relevant information.[Emphasis added] 33.The Petitioner appealed against his transfer citing several reasons. The letter of transfer is reproduced below:To: The Managing Director Date: 1st July, 2025FromPhilip Mulogosi (Co.No.2166)Chief Technician OperationsOperations DepartmentPS 27 ELDORETRE: APPEAL AGAINST TRANSFER DECISIONI wish to respectfully I appeal the recent decision by Management to transfer me from my current station.I am presently in the final phase of my professional journey, with approximately one and a half years remaining until my retirement, having dedicated over 31 years of service to this Company with unwavering loyalty and diligence. During this time, I have been committed to fulfilling my duties with diligence while mentally and practically preparing for retirement. In fact, I was fortunate to benefit from a pre-retirement training program recently organized by the Company, a clear indication that the Company was supporting and facilitating my smooth transition into retirement. Hence, the recent decision regarding my transfer presents significant personal and professional challengesIn line with these preparations, I have already initiated a well-established home and social environment, community-based engagements to enable a meaningful post-retirement life, which encompasses my family obligations, particularly my role in caring for my elderly mother. Due to her impaired mobility, she requires monthly routine medical check-ups, and my relocation would significantly hinder her medical care and the support systems available to her. I am currently serving as a pastor within my local church, and I have also established support and social circles that are not only vital to my personal well-being but also allow me to continue contributing to the community in a meaningful way. A sudden transfer at this delicate stage would inevitably disrupt this process, causing both personal and social disorientation.I fully understand the operational demands that necessitate transfers, and I remain grateful for the opportunities and growth that the Company has afforded me over the years. However, I kindly appeal for a reconsideration of this decision in view of the short time left to retirement and the considerable investments I have made in my personal and community integration, in line with the guidance received from the retirement training.Should the transfer be deemed absolutely necessary, I respectfully request that the same be deferred until the completion of my service. I remain committed to the organization's mission and values, and I assure you of my continued dedication until the end of my service.Thank you for your understanding and consideration.Yours faithfully.SignedPhilip Mulogosi 34.The Respondent did not respond to the appeal prompting the petitioner to send several reminders. 35.By his letters dated 9th September and 6th October, 2025 the Petitioner pointed out that he had been informed that his transfer was not a normal transfer, but a consequence of discussions during the Respondent’s EXCO (presumably Executive Committee) meeting at which it was agreed that he should be transferred due to some issues related to his conduct and performance. The letter dated 6th October is reproduced for reference.To: The Managing Director Date: October 6, 2025Kenya Pipeline Company LimitedFromPhilip Mulogosi (Co.No.2166)Chief Technician OperationsPS 27 ELDORETDear Sir/Madam,RE: RESPONSE TO COMMUNICATION DATED 3RD OCTOBER 2025 ON TRANSFER TO NAIROBII acknowledge receipt of you communication referenced above, reiterating the directive for me to report to the PS 10, Nairobi terminal by 19th September 2025, failing which disciplinary action shall be instituted.While I remain a committed and loyal employee of the Company for the last 32 years, I am compelled, with utmost respect to restate the following for record and due process:1.Pending Appeal and Lack of Substantive ResponseI have lodged formal appeals dated 1st July 2025, 24th July 2025, and a further appeal addressed to the Managing Director on 2nd September 2025. To date, none of these appeals has been substantively addressed in accordance with the principles of fair administrative action. Proceeding to enforce the transfer without a considered response undermines my constitutional right under Article 47 to fair administrative action.2.Procedural and Legal ConcernsOn 1st July 2025.I reported to Nairobi. and in a meeting with the GM(HR&A),she informed me that the transfer arose from “issues raised at my current station.” as1.Reporting on duty putting on suits and just sitting in the office2.Failing to the occasion of making vital decisions.Further, in another meeting with the Operations Manager, he reiterated the same and told me that the matter had been discussed in the EXCO meeting after which he was my name and asked to seek for my replacement, in addition to that he told me I was not to be transferred to any loading station which I find pointing an integrity finger on me. I have never been served with particulars of any of these allegations nor accorded a hearing. under Section 41 of the Employment Act,2007. This raises legitimate concern that the transfer may be punitive in nature, amount to a disciplinary sanction without due process.3.Proximity to retirement and Good Faith considerationsWith only one and a half years to retirement, and having undergone company sponsored pre-retirement training, the transfer has significant personal, financial and psychological implications. This decision, without justification, contravenes the principles of fair labour practices guaranteed under Article 41 of the Constitution.Constructive Dismissal RiskPersisting in enforcing a transfer that appears punitive, is unreasoned, and disregarding due process could amount to constructive dismissal. I continue to seek dialogue, not confrontation, and therefore request that the Company reconsider its position in the spirit of fairness and mutual respect.In light of the above, I kindly request: I hereby invoke the provisions outlined in Section 12 of the Human Recourse Procedural Manual regarding the Grievance Procedure. I request the opportunity present my case prior to initiation of any disciplinary proceeds against me. A formal written response to my appeal to the Managing Director, and Reconsider and suspend implementation of the transfer pending a full and fair determination of my appeal: or In the alternative, allow me to serve the remaining less than 1 ½ years of my career form my current duty station at Eldoret, thereby ensuring a dignified and orderly transition to retirement. Reaffirm my loyalty and continued commitment to the Kenya Pipeline Company and to discharging my duties diligently in accordance with the law and company policy. Yours faithfully. Signed Philip Mulogosi 36.By the Respondent’s letter dated 3rd October, 2025 it notified the Petitioner that his appeal and follow up letters had been considered and a decision made that he proceeds on the transfer. 37.As set out above, the Respondent’s Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual provides at 2.40.7 that no staff shall be transferred on any disciplinary grounds. Further, that where disciplinary issues have been noted about an employee, they shall be handled independently without linking them to transfer on disciplinary grounds. 38.Further, the Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual provides at 2.40.9 that any proposed transfers due to exigencies of service will be discussed in the first instance between line managers and Head of Human Resources before formal Managing Director's approval is sought and that management will endeavour to consider the personal and social circumstances of the staff being transferred. 39.In the instant case the Petitioner explained his social circumstances in his appeal for which he never received any formal response until 8th September, 2025 and no reason was given for the rejection of the appeal. Notably the response came after several reminders from the Petitioner and was made through a memo from OM (presumably Operations Manager) and not the General Manager (HR&A) to whom the appeal was addressed. 40.From the evidence on record, it is apparent that since the Petitioner was employed in 1993, he had been stationed in Eldoret where, as stated in his letter of appeal, he had established his home. Further, as stated in his several appeals, he had only one and a half year to retirement, had been taken through a retirement training by the Respondent, had got engaged in community activities including becoming a pastor in his local church where he engaged in community activities, all of which would be disrupted by his transfer. 41.In the letter of transfer dated 24th June, 2025 no indication is made that the transfer was for any special reason warranting such drastic action in an employee’s sunset years in an organization where he had worked for more than 30 years. Further, no mention is made that the Petitioner’s transfer to PS 10 Nairobi Terminal was because of required highly skilled personnel to support its operations, including the commissioning of a new bottom loading facility and that he was identified as the most suitable officer for deployment owing to the Petitioner's expertise. Further, no evidence was adduced to support these averments. 42.The Respondent did not communicate any reasons for the transfer or give indication that it intended to hear the Petitioner’s appeal until 8th October, 2025, more than 3 months after his initial appeal, when he was informed that plans were underway to set up a meeting between the MD, GM(O&ES), Operations Manager and GMHRA. This was after the Petitioner made his third appeal to the Managing Director complaining about lack of a formal hearing on his appeal. 43.Furthermore, there is a policy in the Public Sector to the effect that employees nearing retirement are transferred to work near their homes to enable them integrate into the community in preparation for retirement. The transfer of the Petitioner away from the place where he had settled by default of the Respondent in having him work at the same station from the time he was employed and refusing to reconsider the decision even after so many appeals, while giving no compelling reason for uprooting the Petitioner from the station, amounts to unfair labour practice. 44.The Respondent’s silence in the face of the petitioner’s accusations of a meeting having been held at which such decision was made further reinforces the belief of the court that the transfer was a punishment to the Petitioner. 45.Ordinarily a transfer to Nairobi would come with additional expenses while the hectic city life would cause tremendous distress to an employee who for over 30 years and had worked in a small town, for which the court takes judicial notice. 46.These factors should have been taken into account by the Respondent in accordance with the provisions of Clause 2.40.9 of the Respondent’s Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual before it made the decision to transfer the Petitioner. 47.For these reasons the court is inclined to agree with the petitioner that such transfer was deliberately intended to punish him without taking him through a formal disciplinary process and amounts to a breach of his constitutional rights under Articles 27, 28, 29, 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution. 48.The Respondent further violated the Petitioner’s rights under 236 which protects public officers from punishment without due process. 49.The Respondent’s conduct was further in breach of Article 73 on responsible leadership and on values and principles of public service. Whether the Respondent acted in breach of the interim orders of this Court by interfering with the Petitioner's system access, operational privileges and assigned duties 50.The Petitioner contends that following the institution of this Petition, this Court issued interim orders directing that the prevailing status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the Petition. He maintains that despite having knowledge of the said orders, the Respondent deliberately withdrew, disabled and interfered with his system access, operational privileges, functional coding credentials and assigned duties, thereby preventing him from discharging his official responsibilities. 51.According to the Petitioner, the Respondent's actions amounted to a deliberate attempt to circumvent and undermine the authority of the Court. He further contends that the withdrawal of his system access exposed him to professional embarrassment, reputational harm and psychological distress, contrary to the subsisting orders of the Court. 52.The Respondent denies the Petitioner's allegations and maintains that it acted lawfully and within the confines of its managerial authority. It disputes that it acted in disobedience of any order issued by this Court. 53.The issue for the Court’s consideration is whether the evidence on record establishes that the Respondent acted in breach of the interim orders issued herein. The determination of that question necessarily depends on the scope of the interim orders, whether the Respondent had knowledge thereof and whether the acts complained of were inconsistent with those orders. 54.The Petitioner exhibited email correspondence which he contends demonstrates that his system access and operational privileges were withdrawn following the issuance of the interim orders. While that correspondence may show that certain administrative measures were undertaken by the Respondent, it does not, without more proof, establish that those measures were implemented in deliberate contravention of the Court's orders. 55.Allegations that a party has acted in breach of a court order are serious in nature as they touch on the authority and dignity of the Court. Such allegations must therefore be supported by cogent and persuasive evidence demonstrating both the existence of the order and deliberate non-compliance therewith. 56.In the present case, the Petitioner did not place before the Court sufficient evidence demonstrating that the alleged withdrawal of his system access and operational privileges fell within the conduct expressly restrained by the interim orders or that the Respondent willfully acted in defiance of those orders. In any case, no contempt proceedings were instituted to enable the Court to interrogate the alleged disobedience in accordance with the applicable legal principles. 57.While the Court does not condone any conduct that undermines its authority or the effectiveness of its orders, the evidence presented in this Petition is insufficient to support a definitive finding that the Respondent breached the interim orders issued herein. 58.I therefore find that the allegation that the Respondent acted in breach of the interim orders of this Court has not been proved to the requisite standard. Whether the Respondent breached the Petitioner’s legitimate expectations 59.Legitimate expectation was defined in De Smith, Woolf & Jowell, in “Judicial Review of Administrative Action cited in Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority Ex Parte M- Kopa Kenya Limited as quoted with approval by the Court of Appeal Transparency International - Kenya v Omondi (Civil Appeal 81 of 2018) [2023] KECA 174 (KLR) (17February 2023) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2023] KECA 174 (KLR thus:“A legitimate expectation arises where a person responsible for taking a decision has induced in someone a reasonable expectation that he will receive or retain a benefit of advantage. It is a basic principle of fairness that legitimate expectations ought not to be thwarted. The protection of legitimate expectations is at the root of the constitutional principle of the rule of law, which requires predictability and certainty in government’s dealings with the public.” 60.The Petitioner submitted that he has less than 2 years to retirement. He further submitted that the Respondent has organized training and counselling for him and other employees who are nearing retirement in preparation to retirement. Further, that he has already put in place arrangements for his retirement including making financial and other economic and social plans for exiting employment. 61.Although the Respondent has every right to transfer any employee to any of its stations, such right is subject to the consideration of each employee’s circumstances as provided in its Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual at 2.40.7 and 2.40.9. If an employee who has been taken through retirement planning by the employer is to be transferred, a reasonable employer is expected to explain to such employee why such action is to be taken and hear representations of the employee before making a final decision. 62.The manner in which the Petitioner’s transfer was handled demonstrates a lot of insensitivity and high handedness on the part of the Respondent. The letter of transfer did not indicate that there were any special reasons for the transfer of the Petitioner. Conversely, the uncontroverted averments of the Petitioner imply that the transfer was undertaken as some form of punishment for alleged misconduct against the Petitioner for which he had not been taken through disciplinary process. 63.It is therefor clear that the transfer of the Petitioner was in bad faith and intended to punish him without a hearing. It was clearly against his legitimate expectations that he would be consulted before retirement and that he will not be punished without due process. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Petition 64.Having found that the transfer was undertaken breach of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights under Articles 27, 28, 29, 41, 47, 50, 73 and 236, having further found that the transfer was in bad faith and against the legitimate expectations of the Petitioner, I find merit in the Petition and accordingly make the following orders:a.A declaration that the acts of the Respondents violated Articles 27, 28, 41, 47 and 232 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.b.An order of certiorari bringing into this court and quashing the letter of transfer dated 24th June, 2025.c.An order of prohibition restraining enforcement of the transfer and any disciplinary measure against the Petitioner herein.d.There shall be no orders as to costs. 65.Orders accordingly. DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED ON THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026.M. ONYANGOJUDGE