https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1576

Naipanoi & 2 others v Kenya Wildlife Service & another (Constitutional Petition E194 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1576 (KLR) (5 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1576 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Constitutional Petition E194 of 2024 JW Keli, J June 5, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTRAVENTION OF NATIONAL VALUES AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 10, 27, 28, 31, 40 AND 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT ACT, 2007 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE WILDLIFE (CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT), ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE RECRUITMENT OF KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE Between Purity Naipanoi 1st Petitioner Abubakar Omar Abdallah 2nd Petitioner Cynthia Wandia Mulinge 3rd Petitioner and Kenya Wildlife Service 1st Respondent The Commandant, Law Enforcement Academy, Manyani 2nd Respondent Judgment 1.The Petitioners were former recruits of the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), and on being discontinued from the training program, commenced this suit vide a Petition dated 28th November 2024 seeking the following orders:-a.A Declaration that the Respondent’s letter of discontinuation dated 23rd November 2024 issued to Purity Naipanoi is void due to the Respondents’ breach of Constitutional rights.b.A Declaration that the Respondent’s letter of discontinuation dated 23rd November 2024 issued to Abubakar Omar Abdalla is void due to the Respondents’ breach of Constitutional rights.c.A Declaration that the Respondent’s letter of discontinuation dated 23rd November 2024 issued to Cynthia Wandia Mulinge is void due to the Respondents’ breach of Constitutional rights.d.A Permanent injunction restraining the Respondents their servants, agents, hirelings or whosoever acting under their instructions from dismissing the Petitioners from the Respondents’ service unless for lawful reasons.e.An Order of mandamus compelling the Respondents to jointly and/or severally pay compensation of Kenya Shillings Five Million (Kshs.5,000,000/=) to the Petitioners on account of breaching the petitioners’ constitutional rights.f.Costs for the Petition. 2.The Petition was filed alongside the Petitioners’ individual Supporting Affidavits all sworn on 28th November 2025, and annexures thereto. 3.In response to the Petition the Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 8th January 2025; and a Replying Affidavit sworn by GEORGE OSURI on 16th September 2025. The Petitioner’s case in summary 4.The Petitioners’ case is that the 1st Respondent published an advertisement for nationwide recruitment of cadets and rangers in March 2024, for a recruitment exercise scheduled for 15th April 2024 to 19th April 2024 across various venues within the country. The requirements for recruitment were:a)Be a citizen of Kenya;b)Hold a Kenya National Identity Card/Passport;c)Hail from the County of recruitment;d)Possess a minimum mean grade of “D” (Plain) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education KCSE) examination or its equivalent from an examination body recognized in Kenya;e)Be aged between 18 and 26 years;f)Be physically and medically fit;g)Have no criminal record; andh)Successful candidates will be required to undergo mandatory paramilitary training for a period of six (6) months and thereafter be deployed to the field. 5.Further, according to the advertisement, candidates who were successful at recruitment would be required to undergo mandatory paramilitary training for a period of six (6) months and thereafter be deployed to the field. 6.It is stated that the Petitioners presented themselves for the recruitment exercise in the venues within their respective counties, and were successfully enlisted as ranger recruits of the 1st Respondent and ordered to report for paramilitary training and examinations at the KWS Law Enforcement Academy at Manyani on 23rd May 2024 without fail. On 23rd May 2024, the Petitioners reported at the KWS Law Enforcement Academy at Manyani and they were processed and duly admitted for paramilitary training and examination in line with the 1st Respondent’s training curriculum. 7.From 23rd May 2024 until 23rd November 2024, the Petitioners were trained and instructed on several courses including: Firearm handling where they were introduced to a range of firearms in the category of the pistol, rifle, and shotgun and taught on the fundamentals of shooting, safety, firearms handling, and marksmanship; Biodiversity and ecology where they were introduced to various animal species in Kenya and their respective habitats, behavioral mechanisms and appropriate responses; and Wildlife and Management laws in Kenya where they were introduced to regulations on wildlife, endangered species and offences regarding wildlife and wildlife products. 8.The Petitioners aver that they duly attended and participated in all the trainings and heeded to the instructors’ directives, orders and instructions without question. 9.The Petitioners’ troubles began on 23rd November 2024, exactly six (6) months since they had commenced their training and just ten (10) days before the pass out scheduled for 3rd December 2024. The 2nd Respondent summoned the Petitioners to his office and issued them with letters dismissing the Petitioners from the Academy allegedly for medical reasons. They were ordered to sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the letters before allowing them to leave. They later learnt that the Respondents enlisted other persons to take up the places of the Petitioners during the pass out scheduled for 3rd December 2024. 10.The Petitioners claim is that the Respondents breached their constitutional rights, statutory duties and legal principles. In particular, they violated their legitimate expectation by enlisting the Petitioners as ranger recruits and admitting them to the Academy, following a thorough scrutiny and interrogation of their applications and a finding that they were medically fit to successfully undertake the necessary training in line with Regulation 10 (3) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management (Security Operations) Regulations, 2016. Medical unfitness could not have arisen at the end of the training. After being issued with calling letters, the Petitioners expected to graduate and be deployed as fully-fledged officers after completing the six (6) month training at the Academy. 11.Further, the Respondent contravened Article 47 of the Constitution on the right to fair administrative action by failing to adhere to a reasonable, fair and valid administrative procedure while dismissing the Petitioners from the Academy. Specifically, the letters of discontinuance on alleged medical reasons do not identify the medical condition that the Respondent refers to, how it hinders the training of the Petitioners and/or how it would prevent the Petitioners from carrying out their duties. In addition, no notice of the dismissal was issued prior to being furnished with the letters of discontinuance; and the Respondents issued the Petitioners with treatment notes dated 23rd November 2024 premised on a medical examination purportedly conducted upon the Petitioners by the Academy’s registered clinical officer, and medical reports allegedly issued on 14th November 2024 by one Dr. Shem Jeremiah at Moi County Referral Hospital in Taita Taveta County, yet the Petitioners were not subjected to medical examination by the Academy’s clinical officer on the said date and/or by Dr. Shem Jeremiah, who they never even met. 12.The Petitioners argue that their Article 41 right to fair labour Practices was also violated as the Respondents did not issue the Petitioners with a termination notice in line with Section 35 of the Employment Act; the Respondents have withheld the Petitioners’ monthly stipend for the month of November 2024; and the Respondents terminated the Petitioners’ training unfairly contrary to Section 45 of the employment Act. They further argue that the Respondents did not act in accordance with the values/principles of transparency and accountability per Article 10 of the Constitution, in that they did not inform, involve or include the Petitioners in the decision-making process leading to the decision that the Petitioners were medically unfit. The Petitioners’ Article 28 right to human dignity is alleged to have been violated as the Respondents admitted the Petitioners for vigorous paramilitary training with the promise of hiring the Petitioners upon completion of the training only to dismiss the Petitioners from the Academy after the Petitioners had completed the training; and the Respondents did not inform the Petitioners that they were discontinuing them from training until the day of the dismissal itself. 13.On the issue of the procedural propriety of the Respondents’ conduct, the Petitioners state that they were not given any prior written notice that they were under consideration for discontinuation; were not supplied in advance with any alleged medical file, assessment report, class attendance record, training performance record, psychiatric report or recommendation relied upon by the Respondents; and were not invited to any hearing, disciplinary sitting, medical board sitting, review panel or any forum where they were informed of the decision to discontinue them on medical grounds. They were also not granted any opportunity to verify or independently interrogate the medical allegations made against them before the decision to discontinue them from training was communicated. 14.The Petitioners renounce the medical reports relied on by the Respondents for the reasons that none of them indicate that they are medically unfit for training. Further, they state that the Respondents’ case is pegged on hearsay, second-hand information and untested medical conclusions allegedly made by third parties, some of whom have not sworn affidavits before the Court. They emphasize that temporary periods of illness cannot justify the crude, abrupt and opaque manner in which they were removed from the programme after months of participation, and do not extinguish their Constitutional protections. 15.On the issue of failure to complete certain courses, the Petitioners state that this cannot be a valid reason for their discontinuance unless the Respondents demonstrate that they were notified of the alleged deficiencies in time; given a fair chance to remedy or respond to them; and the final decision was made transparently, proportionately and in good faith. This claim also does not rebut the Petitioners’ case on legitimate expectation. The 1st Petitioner complains that the allegation that she was mentally unstable, made without affording her a fair and verifiable process, exposed her to stigma, emotional distress, ridicule and embarrassment in the eyes of my family, peers and community. Respondents’ case in brief 16.The Respondents oppose the Petition on the premise that it violates the principle of Constitutional avoidance. 17.With regard to the 1st Petitioner, the Respondents concede that she enlisted as a ranger recruit in the 1st Respondent organization following a nationwide recruitment. They state that it was expressly communicated that the enlistment did not amount to appointment to the 1st Respondent's organization, with such appointment being subject to reporting to training, satisfactory completion of the six months basic ranger recruits paramilitary training course, and passing of the final examinations set by the 1st Respondent's Law Enforcement Academy based at Manyani. The Respondents draw a distinction between recruitment as an employee, which they deny was the case for the Petitioners, and recruitment as a student of the Law Enforcement Academy. They clarify that the Petitioners’ employment would commence only upon successful completion of the course. 18.It is admitted that the 1st Petitioner reported for paramilitary training at the 1st Respondent's Law Enforcement Academy, Manyani, on 26th May, 2024, and began her training which was aimed at equipping her, alongside other recruits, with the skills to be employed as rangers in the 1st Respondent organization upon satisfactory completion of the course. In order to graduate, the 1st Petitioner was required to fully attend all the courses offered including drill, skills at arms, field craft, first aid, wildlife education, disaster management and physical fitness which are the core modules; as well as marine operations, field training exercise and range classification. After physically attending all the courses, recruits are assessed by the course officers through formative and summative evaluation, as having successfully completed the courses. The Respondents emphasize that the recruits must be physically present for all sessions both practical and theory, failure to which they are deemed to have failed to obtain the qualifications for employment as rangers. 19.It is the Respondents’ case that they were informed by the Law Enforcement Academy Clinical Officer that the 1st Petitioner was first taken ill on 4th July 2024, a month after reporting to the Academy, and was admitted at the Law Enforcement Academy Health Centre from 4th July 2024 to 8th July 2024 as she was suffering from a urinary tract infection, respiratory tract infection and episodes of fainting. She was admitted a second time for similar health issues from 18th July 2024 to 22nd July 2024. During these periods, the 1st Petitioner failed to attend training. Further, after being discharged, it was recommended that she rests for one week to achieve full recovery, hence she could not be put through the rigorous training required. 20.The Respondents explain that the Petitioner resumed classes after her bed rest, but she was still sickly and attended classes on and off. Notably she was not able to take part in any strenuous activity, a core facet of the training. The Respondents report that on 25th August 2024 the Law Enforcement Academy Clinical Officer informed them that the 1st Petitioner had attempted suicide and had been immediately admitted at the Law Enforcement Clinic where she was treated and counselled from 25th August 2024 to 31st August 2024. Due to the suicide attempt and the two incidents of illness, the 1st Petitioner was kept under close watch by the Academy and it was observed that she was withdrawn, screamed unprovoked and was found to be cutting herself resulting in fresh wounds. Upon inquiry, the 1st Petitioner stated that her behaviour was an anger-management mechanism. The 1st Petitioner was subsequently referred by the Law Enforcement Academy Clinical Officer for psychiatric review at the Moi County Referral Hospital in Voi which was conducted on 29th August 2024. She underwent counselling, received a prescription for antidepressant medication, and was recommended for monthly counselling sessions. 21.It is averred that on 3rd September 2024, the 1st Petitioner complained of severe lower back pain coupled with peptic ulcers and pelvic pain which did not subside despite treatment at the Law Enforcement Academy Health Centre. The 1st Petitioner was therefore referred by the Academy Clinical Officer to River Jordan Hospital where she was examined by a gynaecologist, and underwent tests including an abdominal ultrasound, which came back normal. The 1st Petitioner received a prescription for medication, and was thereafter taken to Moi County Referral Hospital, Voi, for psychiatric review, following which she was once again admitted at the Law Enforcement Health Centre from 3rd September 2024 to 11th September 2024 for close monitoring, counselling nursing care and phytosociological support. Even after being discharge, she remained sickly and did not attend training. On 18th September 2024, the 1st Petitioner was taken back to River Jordan Hospital for further investigations as she continued to complain of pelvic pain, and received a prescription for further medication. 22.The Respondents narrate that the 1st Petitioner suffered bouts of further illness on 24th September 2024, 6th October 2024, 22nd October 2024, and 27th October 2024 when she developed lower respiratory tract infection and received treatment at Law Enforcement Academy Health Centre. As a result of her frequent illness, the 1st Petitioner was unable to attend training throughout the six-month period, and she was not assessed as she was unavailable for the same. The 1st Petitioner was eventually referred for evaluation by the Taita Taveta County Medical Board for independent medical assessment to determine her suitability to continue with the course. Vide a letter dated 14th November 2024, the board communicated its finding that the 1st Petitioner was mentally unstable and not fit to handle firearms until she underwent cognitive behavioural therapy and psychosocial support, and shows improvement. 23.It is the Respondents’ case that an assessment of the 1st Petitioner’s training progress revealed that she had not undertaken core units in the training, namely marine operations training, field training exercise and was not classified in the range classification exercise. As such, she could not qualify for employment as a ranger in the 1st Respondent organization. After establishing the foregoing, the Respondents state that they reached a decision to discontinue the 1st Petitioner from the course. 24.The Respondents state that the 1st Petitioner was informed of the decision to discontinue her from the course due to ill health, and she acknowledged the discontinuation. The Respondents emphasize that the 1st Petitioner was neither coerced nor induced into acknowledging receipt of the letter of discontinuation. They state that the ranger training course, being meant to equip rangers to work in harsh conditions in remote areas and to handle dangerous weapons, must be fully attended by the trainee. The mere presence of the recruit within the training school does not amount to having attended the course, been evaluated and assessed. 25.The Respondents deny the 1st Petitioner’s claim that the psychiatric diagnosis was made by the Clinical Officer based at the Law Enforcement Academy, and affirm that the assessment was made by the psychiatrist at the Moi County Referral Hospital, Voi, who prescribed medication and counselling for 1st Petitioner, and later confirmed by the Taita Taveta County Medical Board. They insist that the decision to discontinue the 1st Petitioner was procedural and fair as she was a trainee at the Academy and her health records, along with her training record were considered in arriving at the decision. The Respondents deny the claim that the 1st Petitioner’s position was given to someone else, stating that the job of a ranger is a specialized skill and cannot be issued to a person without proper training and credentials. 26.The Respondents disown the Wildlife Conservation and Management (Security Operations) Regulations, 2016 which are relied upon by the Petitioners, and state that they do not exist. Further, they state that the Petitioners have not demonstrated with precision how their Constitutional rights have been violated, or that no other remedy is available to her in law if so. Determination 27.Following directions by the court that parties should file written submissions, the parties complied. Issues for determination 28.In their submissions dated 27th February 2026, the Petitioners identified the following issues for determination:-i.Whether the Petitioners, having been recruited, medically cleared, enrolled, and trained to near completion, were entitled to the protection of the constitutional right to fair labour practices and related public-law guarantees.ii.Whether the Respondents’ decision dismissing the Petitioners from training on alleged medical grounds violated the Petitioners’ right to fair administrative action for want of notice, reasons, disclosure, and hearing.iii.Whether the Respondent was entitled to rely on a last-minute medical disqualification after having accepted the Petitioners’ pre-entry medical fitness and thereby created a legitimate expectation.iv.Whether the impugned decision satisfied the requirements of substantive justification and procedural fairness applicable to medical or incapacity-based exclusion.v.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the declaratory, quashing, restorative, and compensatory reliefs sought. 29.On their part, the 1st and 2nd Respondents submitted on the petition generally in their submissions dated 5th May 2026. 30.The court, having perused the pleadings, was of the considered opinion that the issues for determination in the petition were as follows-i.Whether the petitioners were entitled to fair labour rightsii.Whether the Respondents’ decision dismissing the Petitioners from training on alleged medical grounds violated the Petitioners’ right to fair administrative action for want of notice, reasons, disclosure, and hearing.iii.Whether the petitioners were entitled to remedies sought. Whether the petitioners’ right to fair labour rights was violated. Petitioner’s submissions 31.The petitioners sought the following substantive Order: A Permanent injunction restraining the Respondents, their servants, agents, hirelings or whosoever acting under their instructions, from dismissing the Petitioners from the Respondents’ service unless for lawful reasons. 32.The petitioners submitted that on or around March 2024, the 1st Respondent advertised a nationwide recruitment exercise of cadets and rangers scheduled to take place from 15th April 2024 to 19th April 2024 across various venues within the country. 2. According to the advertisement, the requirements for the recruitment exercise were as follows; -a)Be a citizen of Kenya;b)Hold a Kenya National Identity Card/Passport;c)Hail from the County of recruitment;d)Possess a minimum mean grade of “D” (Plain) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education KCSE) examination or its equivalent from an examination body recognized in Kenya;e)Be aged between 18 and 26 years;f)Be physically and medically fit;g)Have no criminal record; and, 33.Further, according to the advertisement, candidates who were successful at recruitment would be required to undergo mandatory paramilitary training for a period of six (6) months and thereafter be deployed to the field. The Petitioners, eager for the opportunity, presented themselves for the recruitment exercise in the venues within their respective counties. On 16th and 19th April 2024, the Petitioners were successfully enlisted as ranger recruits of the 1st Respondent and ordered to report for paramilitary training and examinations at the KWS Law Enforcement Academy at Manyani on 23rd May 2024 without fail. On 23rd May 2024, the Petitioners reported at the KWS Law Enforcement Academy at Manyani where they were processed and duly admitted for paramilitary training and examination in line with the 1st Respondent’s training curriculum. 34.From 23rd May 2024 until 23rd November 2024, the Petitioners were trained and instructed on several courses including; -a)Firearm handling. They were introduced to a range of firearms in the category of the pistol, rifle, and shotgun and taught on the fundamentals of shooting, safety, firearms handling, and marksmanship.b)Biodiversity and ecology. They were introduced to various animal species in Kenya and their respective habitats, behavioral mechanisms and appropriate responses.c)Wildlife and Management laws in Kenya. They were introduced to regulations on wildlife, endangered species and offences regarding wildlife and wildlife products. 35.The Petitioners attended and participated in all the trainings dutifully and heeded to the instructors’ directives, orders and instructions without question and with zealous commitment and determination to successfully complete their training and serve the nation. However, on 23rd November 2024, exactly six (6) months since the Petitioners had commenced their training and just ten (10) days before the pass out scheduled for 3rd December 2024, the 2nd Respondent summoned the Petitioners to his office, issued the Respondents with letters dismissing the Petitioners from the Academy allegedly for medical reasons. The petitioners submitted that In PKJ v Attorney General & 3 others [2025] KEELRC, the Claimant was General Duty Recruit undergoing training at the Kenya Defence Forces Recruits Training School at Eldoret when he was abruptly dismissed from training after a medical test revealed that he was HIV-Positive. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango held as follows; “Article 41 provides for fair labour practices. Although the Petitioner was not yet a formal employee of the Kenya Defence Forces, he was at the initial stages of a structured recruitment and training process, which is subject to constitutional labour standards. In this regard, the 2nd Respondent’s action violated the Petitioner’s right to fair labour practices.” 36.The Petitioners were not legal strangers to constitutional fairness merely because they were still within a formal training programme. The recruitment exercise was a structured labour entry process. The Petitioners were invited to apply, screened, required to satisfy medical standards, admitted into institutional training, subjected to command and discipline, and brought to the threshold of graduation. In those circumstances, the relationship had acquired a labour and public-law character sufficient to attract the guarantees of Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution. Article 41(1) of the Constitution provides that every person has the right to fair labour practices. The breadth of the phrase “every person” is deliberate. It is not confined to persons who have already received letters of appointment. Where a state or quasi-state institution operates a regimented recruitment and training pipeline as the gateway into service, the process itself must conform to constitutional fairness. The Petitioners further submit that, even if the Respondent were to argue that no formal employment contract had crystallised, the impugned dismissal still amounted to an adverse administrative action. Once the Respondent made a decision that directly affected the Petitioners’ legal interests, status, livelihood prospects, dignity, and legitimate expectations, Article 47 of the Constitution and section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act were immediately engaged. Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act requires prior and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the proposed administrative action, an opportunity to be heard and to make representations, notice of the right to review or internal appeal where applicable, and disclosure of the information, materials, and evidence to be relied upon. On the Petitioners’ instructions, none of those safeguards were afforded. In Walter Ogal Anuro vs Teachers Service Commission [2013] KEELRC 386 (KLR) the court held that “for a termination of employment to pass the fairness test, there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness.” The court further explained that “substantive justification has to do with establishment of a valid reason… while procedural fairness addresses the procedure adopted.” The Respondent’s decision fails both limbs of that test. There is no disclosed valid and current medical basis explaining why persons who had been medically cleared at entry suddenly became unfit ten days before graduation. Equally, there is no evidence that the Petitioners were notified of the complaint against them, furnished with the medical material relied upon, heard, or allowed to challenge the adverse conclusion. In Wekesa v Fidelity Security Limited (Cause 1939 of 2017) [2023] eKLR, the Honorable Court restated the minimum procedural obligations where an employer or institution seeks to dismiss an employee on the basis of alleged incapacity or medical unfitness. The Court held that “before relieving the employee of his employment, the employer is obliged to: inform the employee of the grounds… permit the employee to respond… and permit the employee to call witnesses.” . While that case arose in an orthodox employment setting, the logic is directly applicable to the present dispute. A respondent cannot invoke medical grounds as a conclusory label. The affected trainees had to be told the exact medical concern, supplied with the material relied upon, and given an opportunity to explain, challenge, or seek an independent second opinion before the drastic step of dismissal was taken. The Petitioners also rely on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The Respondent expressly required pre-entry medical reports and accepted those reports as sufficient to admit the Petitioners into training. That act represented to the Petitioners that, as at entry, they satisfied the Respondent’s medical threshold. Respondent’s submissions 37.Conversely, the respondent submitted that We submit that at the time of the Petitioner’s discontinuation from the 1st Respondent’s Law Enforcement Academy, the employer/employee relationship as between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent had not yet been established. They were not in the Service of the 1st Respondent and therefore are not entitled to the remedy they seek. We rely on PKJ v Attorney General & 3 others (Petition E028 of 2022)[2025] KEELRC 2083 (KLR) wherein the Honourable Court stated thus, “On the third issue, the Petitioner seeks an order that he be reinstated as a KDF recruit with full prevailing benefits. Reinstatement is a remedy reserved for persons who have been dismissed from a subsisting employment relationship. The Petitioner herein had not yet been employed by the 2nd Respondent, although he had already qualified for recruitment but for his medical condition, going by the evidence on record. The Court finds that reinstatement is not available to the Petitioner, as no employment relationship had been perfected between him and the Respondent” Decision on issue 1. 38.The court upholds the decision in where the court held as follows as regards the petitioners who were of similar status as recruits in Kenya Defence Forces – ‘Article 41 provides for fair labour practices. Although the petitioner was not yet a formal employee of the Kenya Defence Forces, he was at the initial stages of a structured recruitment and training process, which is subject to constitutional labour standards.’’ The court finds that the rights of the petitioners are limited to the terms of engagement as recruits as there was no employment contract.PKJ v Attorney General & 3 others [2025] KEELRC 2083 (KLR) Whether the Respondents’ decision dismissing the Petitioners from training on alleged medical grounds violated the Petitioners’ right to fair administrative action for want of notice, reasons, disclosure, and hearing. 39.The petitioners were all issued with same worded letter as follows-‘this is to notify you that you have been discontinued form the ongoing recruit ranger paramilitary training for medical reasons.’ The petitioners signed, stating that they had received the letter and the reason for the discontinuation. The petitioners urged that the discontinuation was done 10 days before the end of the 6-month recruit program in breach of their constitutional rights and legitimate expectations. 40.The petitioner submitted - In Walter Ogal Anuro vs Teachers Service Commission [2013] KEELRC 386 (KLR) the court held that “for a termination of employment to pass the fairness test, there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness.” The court further explained that “substantive justification has to do with establishment of a valid reason… while procedural fairness addresses the procedure adopted.” 18. The Respondent’s decision fails both limbs of that test. There is no disclosed valid and current medical basis explaining why persons who had been medically cleared at entry suddenly became unfit ten days before graduation. Equally, there is no evidence that the Petitioners were notified of the complaint against them, furnished with the medical material relied upon, heard, or allowed to challenge the adverse conclusion. In Wekesa v Fidelity Security Limited (Cause 1939 of 2017) [2023] eKLR, the Honorable Court restated the minimum procedural obligations where an employer or institution seeks to dismiss an employee on the basis of alleged incapacity or medical unfitness. The Court held that “before relieving the employee of his employment, the employer is obliged to: inform the employee of the grounds… permit the employee to respond… and permit the employee to call witnesses.” While that case arose in an orthodox employment setting, the logic is directly applicable to the present dispute. A respondent cannot invoke medical grounds as a conclusory label. The affected trainees had to be told the exact medical concern, supplied with the material relied upon, and given an opportunity to explain, challenge, or seek an independent second opinion before the drastic step of dismissal was taken. The Petitioners also rely on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The Respondent expressly required pre-entry medical reports and accepted those reports as sufficient to admit the Petitioners into training. That act represented to the Petitioners that, as at entry, they satisfied the Respondent’s medical threshold. Having made that representation and acted on it throughout almost the whole training cycle, the Respondent could not lawfully reverse itself at the point of graduation without clearly demonstrating what had changed, when it changed, who assessed it, and why the Petitioners were not accorded a fair opportunity to be heard on the issue. The abrupt reversal, absent reasons and due process, was arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent with the constitutional duty to act fairly, lawfully, and reasonably. The timing of the dismissal aggravates the unfairness. Removal from a highly structured paramilitary programme only days before graduation does not merely interrupt attendance; it destroys an imminent career opportunity, inflicts reputational injury, and renders the Petitioners’ months of exertion practically wasted. The Constitution protects not only economic interests but also dignity. A public institution that trains recruits almost to completion and then discards them summarily on an unexplained medical pretext acts in a manner that is degrading, disproportionate, and constitutionally suspect. The Court is therefore urged to view the impugned action not as a trivial administrative adjustment, but as a severe adverse decision requiring the highest degree of fairness, transparency, and justification. The Respondent also had a duty to avoid automatic exclusion and to consider reasonable accommodation, re-assessment, treatment, deferment, or other proportionate alternatives before dismissing the Petitioners. A blanket or unexplained exclusion on medical grounds, without evidence and without engagement with the affected persons, amounts to discrimination contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution and offend the constitutional value of inclusion. At the very least, fairness required a transparent medical review, disclosure of findings, and a fair opportunity for the Petitioners to respond. Viewed cumulatively, the Respondent’s conduct was unlawful for four interlocking reasons; First, it amounted to an unfair labour-related exclusion in a structured employment-entry process. Second, it was procedurally unfair because there was no notice, no disclosure of reasons, no access to the medical material relied upon, and no hearing. 33. Third, it was substantively irrational because the Respondent had already certified or accepted the Petitioners as medically fit at entry. Fourth, it violated legitimate expectation by defeating the Petitioners’ near-complete progression to graduation without lawful basis. 41.Conversely, the respondent submitted as follows- The Petitioners did report to the 1st Respondent’s Law Enforcement Academy however, over the duration of the six months were unable to satisfactorily attend and complete the requisite training for employment with the 1st Respondent as rangers due to persistent medical issues that emerged once the paramilitary training process commenced. The medical challenges that plagued the Petitioners were attended to at the behest and cost of the Respondents in various medical facilities as is evidence in the Replying Affidavits sown by Mr. Osuri and Ms. Osore on behalf of the Respondents. The 1st Respondent in the course of the six months took all the measures necessary to ensure that the Petitioners were fit to attend training a fact that is evidenced in the Replying Affidavits of Mr. George Osuri and Linet Osore to no avail. The Petitioners remained sickly and incapable of attending the training necessary for their employment as rangers. Having remained sickly for a period covering a majority of the training, the Petitioners were subjected to the Taita Taveta County Medical Board who assessed them and found them to be medically unfit. It is therefore not true that the Petitioners were not subjected to fair process before their discontinuation from the paramilitary training. It is on the strength of the Taita Taveta County Medical Board assessment conveyed vide the letter dated 14th November, 2024 that the Petitioners were discontinued from the paramilitary training. It is our humble submission that the Petitioners were subjected to fair process having been in their course of their being at the Law Enforcement Academy been given medical attention at various medical facilities at the 1st Respondent’s cost and additionally subjected to an independent evaluation by the Taita Taveta County Medical Board which asserted they were unfit to continue with the training. The Respondents were not in breach of the Petitioners constitutional rights having followed due process in the discontinuation of the Petitioners from the 1st Respondent’s Law Enforcement Academy. The Petitioners at prayer (d) of the Petition seek for a permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from dismissing them from the 1st Respondents service unless for lawful reasons. We submit that at the time of the Petitioner’s discontinuation from the 1st Respondent’s Law Enforcement Academy, the employer/employee relationship as between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent had not yet been established. They were not in the Service of the 1st Respondent and therefore are not entitled to the remedy they seek. We rely on PKJ v Attorney General & 3 others (Petition E028 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2083 (KLR) wherein the Honourable Court stated thus, “On the third issue, the Petitioner seeks an order that he be reinstated as a KDF recruit with full prevailing benefits. Reinstatement is a remedy reserved for persons who have been dismissed from a subsisting employment relationship. The Petitioner herein had not yet been employed by the 2nd Respondent, although he had already qualified for recruitment but for his medical condition, going by the evidence on record. The Court finds that reinstatement is not available to the Petitioner, as no employment relationship had been perfected between him and the Respondent” Decision on issue 2. 42.The court perused the pleadings of both parties. It was not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged in a recruitment program of 6 months after successful recruitment, where their medical tests met the thresholds. However, in the course of the training, it was discovered that the petitioners were unwell and were treated for various ailments. The respondent produced the medical reports to back the reason of the discontinuance. It is given they were not employees. On review of the positions of the parties, I find the reason for medical unfitness was justified. The 1st petitioner filed a further affidavit in response on her behalf and of the other 2 petitioners dated 25th February 2026, where she admitted to the allegation of the petitioners having been unwell during the training. She averred as follows- ’25. THAT the Respondents have also attempted to rely on alleged treatment notes, attendance forms, referral forms and treatment summaries, but such documents do not answer the real complaint before this Court, namely:a)whether I was accorded fair administrative action;b)whether I was treated with dignity;c)whether I was subjected to a transparent and lawful process; andd)whether the Respondents acted fairly and consistently after allowing me to undergo training for nearly its full duration.26.That even if there were episodes of illness during training, which I do not admit in the manner framed by the Respondents, illness by itself could not justify the crude, abrupt and opaque manner in which I was removed from the programme after months of participation.27.That temporary illness, medical complaints or treatment during training did not extinguish our constitutional protections, nor did it authorize the Respondents to ambush us with a discontinuation decision without notice, hearing, reasons and a genuine opportunity to be heard.28.That the Respondents' depositions reveal a preoccupation with retrospectively constructing a medical justification rather than demonstrating a fair and lawful process.’’ The court finds that this was an admission of the existence of the ground of discontinuance of medical reasons. ..’’41.The petitioners agreed that medical fitness was a key condition for recruitment. It was stated so. The program and the job are mentally and physically challenging and involves handling guns, for which any type of mental illness or sickness would pose a danger to colleagues and clients. The court cannot replace its thoughts with those of the employer. The applicable test is that of a reasonable employer as pronounced in British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91. The tribunal in the decision appealed against said:… a reasonable employer would, in our opinion, have considered that a lesser penalty was appropriate'. Lord Denning MR held that the decision was wrong and would be reversed. The Judge observed- ‘I do not think that that is the right test. The correct test is: Was it reasonable for the employers to dismiss him? If no reasonable employer would have dismissed him, then the dismissal was unfair. But if a reasonable employer might reasonably have dismissed him, then the dismissal was fair. It must be remembered that in all these cases there is a band of reasonableness, within which one employer might reasonably take one view: another quite reasonably take a different view. However, Lord Denning MR said the Tribunal did not take into account the fact that Swift did not come clean when he was found out, and he lied about what he had done. A reasonable employer could have dismissed him.’’ (emphasis given) The court finds that the reason for the discontinuance was justified as the petitioners , due to the medical ailments they were unable to participate fully in the program. I do find the petitioners were aware of their medical issues, and the further medical assessment on the 27th November 2024 by a person named James Mutegi allegedly at Loitoktok at Sub County Hospital was not helpful or relevant, as the said person did not disclose their status or even medical qualifications in preparing the assessment report. The court, having held the petitioners were not employees, finds that the concept of reasonable accommodation applicable to employees facing medical challenges was not applicable to the petitioners as they were not employees but persons in a program of recruitment towards establishing an employment relationship. They cannot be treated as equal to employees at the floor shop, as employees hold a contract of service. 43.The court finds that the fact of having been in the training program for 6 months less 10 days could not raise legitimate expectations of employment of the petitioners, who did not meet the medical fitness test, a key requirement in the recruitment, during the training and had not fully participated in the program. 44.The court finds that the petition was not merited and is dismissed. To temper justice with mercy, I make no order as to costs, taking into account the entire facts of the case. 45.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.JEMIMAH KELI,JUDGE.In The Presence Of:Court Assistant: OtienoPetitioners: Kirimi1st and 2nd Respondents: Absent