The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi has ruled that the National Police Service Commission (NPSC) violated the constitutional rights of former GSU constable Andrew Kyalo Mwanza when it dismissed him in 2021 after a drunken firearm-discharge incident.
In a judgment delivered September 22, 2025, Justice Hellen Wasilwa found that the orderly-room proceedings were “unprocedural” and hurried, denying the officer adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, and lacking a written justification for waiving the statutory hearing notice.
The court held that this breached Articles 28 (dignity), 41 (fair labour practices) and 50(2) (fair hearing) of the Constitution. 
Kyalo had been accused of firing six rounds from his assigned G3 rifle at Huruma Shopping Centre, Cheptais, on January 4, 2021, while intoxicated, and of uttering threats relating to his then girlfriend.
He was disarmed, issued with a show-cause on January 5, 2021, and taken through a Subordinate Disciplinary Committee the same day; yet, according to the court, the respondents did not produce proper proceedings, a valid hearing notice, or the mandatory written reasons for waiving the notice period.
Justice Wasilwa faulted the National Police Service Commission for conducting a rushed and unprocedural disciplinary process in July 2021.
She held that the officer was not given enough time to prepare his defence, there was no valid hearing notice, and no written reasons were produced for waiving the statutory notice period.
Kyalo had been accused of firing six rounds from his service G3 rifle at Huruma Shopping Centre in Cheptais on January 4, 2021, while intoxicated.
He was disarmed, issued with a show-cause letter the following day, and immediately presented before a Subordinate Disciplinary Committee.
Although he admitted to discharging the weapon under the influence of alcohol, the judge stressed that even admitted misconduct must be addressed through a fair and transparent process.
She ruled that Kyalo’s rights to dignity, fair labour practices and a fair hearing under Articles 28, 41 and 50(2) of the Constitution had been violated.
The court declined to reinstate him but ordered that he be paid all his dues from the date of dismissal until the date of judgment, plus costs.
Kyalo, through his lawyer Sophie Nekesa, argued that the police treated him as though he was already guilty.
She further told the court that while the officer had uttered threatening words against his then girlfriend, now wife, those remarks were unfortunate and not intended to be acted upon.
Police service in response said Kyalo unlawfully discharged his firearm and used threatening language towards a senior officer, which amounted to gross misconduct.
In the end, the court balanced the seriousness of the offence with the importance of due process, ruling that the dismissal was unlawful and that the officer should receive his full entitlements
