Court Rejects Military Bid to Challenge Ex-KDF Soldier’s KSh25 Million Award

A decade after a Somalia mission accident, former KDF soldier Moses Etyang remains locked in a legal battle over his dismissal and mental health. The Court of Appeal has rejected the military’s latest attempt to challenge his KSh25 million award, finding insufficient grounds for Supreme Court intervention.

The Kenya Defence Forces (KDF) has suffered another legal setback in its prolonged battle with former soldier Moses Etyang.

The Court of Appeal has rejected KDF’s latest attempt to escalate the dispute to the Supreme Court. The decision leaves the previous KSh25 million award undisturbed by this latest ruling.

In a ruling delivered on October 23, 2026, three judges dismissed an application by the Chief of Kenya Defence Forces (CDF) and the Attorney General.

Justices Pauline Nyamweya, Abida Ali-Aroni and Rachel Ngetich found insufficient grounds to certify the proposed appeal as a matter of general public importance.

The judges also found no demonstrated uncertainty in the law requiring the Supreme Court’s intervention.

Their decision marks another milestone in Etyang’s long fight over his dismissal, mental health and treatment during military service.

Somalia Mission

Etyang’s troubles reportedly began after an accident during his deployment to Somalia under the African Union Mission in Somalia.

He enlisted in the military on September 1, 2008, and subsequently served with the 15th and 17th Kenya Rifles.

Between 2013 and 2014, he served in Afmadow, where a military vehicle overturned following an ambush.

Court records recount injuries around his forehead and the back of his head. His commanding officer reportedly considered hospital treatment unnecessary.

Etyang resumed duty after receiving first aid, but his condition subsequently deteriorated.

Memory loss and impaired judgement reportedly affected his performance after returning to Nyali Barracks.

Instead of receiving adequate medical assessment, he faced disciplinary charges, including malingering, insubordination and absence without leave.

The proceedings ended in conviction, 42 days of detention and his eventual discharge on October 6, 2015.

His discharge letter reportedly stated that his “services [were] no longer required”.

In 2018, a medical board reportedly linked his mental illness to injuries sustained during military service.

That finding became central to his challenge against the disciplinary proceedings.

KSh30 Million Award

Etyang eventually challenged his dismissal before the Employment and Labour Relations Court.

On February 28, 2023, Justice Jemimah Keli awarded him KSh30 million in compensation.

The court found his dismissal unlawful and faulted the military’s handling of his medical condition and disciplinary proceedings.

The military challenged the award, arguing that the compensation was excessive and the proceedings followed applicable legal requirements.

On July 31, 2025, the Court of Appeal partially allowed the military’s appeal, reducing the award to KSh25 million.

The appellate court’s decision preserved the substantial compensation award while revising its amount.

The military remained dissatisfied and sought another appeal, this time before the Supreme Court.

However, it first needed certification that its proposed appeal raised a matter of general public importance.

Legal Showdown

The military filed its certification application on February 13, 2026, identifying questions concerning mental capacity, legal representation and military disciplinary procedures.

Its lawyers argued that the issues extended beyond Etyang’s circumstances and required authoritative guidance from the Supreme Court.

They questioned whether accused persons must undergo mental examinations before criminal or quasi-judicial proceedings.

They also challenged whether every accused person requires legal representation during summary military disciplinary proceedings.

Another question concerned whether a mental illness diagnosis made after proceedings automatically invalidates those proceedings.

The applicants further disputed the earlier court’s characterisation of the military disciplinary process as a “kangaroo court”.

Etyang opposed the application through an affidavit filed by his father, Julius Etyang, his primary caregiver.

The affidavit described his son’s severe intellectual disability and mental health condition, alongside the psychological toll of prolonged litigation.

The family argued that the military was attempting to reopen settled questions rather than identify genuine uncertainty in the law.

They also urged the court to protect a vulnerable litigant from further delays.

Public Interest

The three judges ultimately found that the military had failed to satisfy the constitutional threshold for certification.

“The mere formulation of constitutional or legal questions does not, without more, elevate a dispute,” the judges stated.

They found that the proposed questions arose directly from Etyang’s employment and the disciplinary proceedings against him.

The applicants had not adequately demonstrated how resolving those questions would affect the public beyond this dispute.

The court also rejected the argument that disagreement with an earlier judgement established uncertainty in the law.

It found no demonstrated contradictions between judicial decisions or conflicting legal principles requiring Supreme Court clarification.

The judges relied on established authorities, including Steyn v Ruscone, which requires applicants to demonstrate broader significance.

The ruling reinforces a critical principle: invoking constitutional provisions does not automatically open the Supreme Court’s doors.

Applicants must show why their proposed appeals transcend individual circumstances and warrant authoritative determination.

READ ALSO: Edwin Muthomi: This is What Happens to KDF Officers Accused of Murder

The court dismissed the application and awarded costs to Etyang.

Importantly, the ruling did not independently determine whether the KSh25 million award has been paid.

Nor did it establish that every summary military disciplinary proceeding is unconstitutional.

Instead, it rejected this particular attempt to obtain certification for a further appeal.

For Etyang, the decision represents another legal victory after years of fighting over his dismissal and treatment.

For the military, it closes this particular route to the Supreme Court, leaving the previous appellate judgement undisturbed by the latest ruling.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.