The Employment and Labour Relations Court ruled that military authorities acted unlawfully by keeping Preston Mwanzia Kimanthi out of service after overturning his conviction-based discharge.
KDF must restore his rank, salary and benefits, or pay KSh2 million in constitutional compensation alongside his terminal dues.
A Kenyan soldier whose rape conviction was overturned has won a major legal battle against military authorities.
The court ordered his reinstatement, exposing serious questions about how KDF handled his discharge.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court found that the military could not revoke his discharge yet keep him outside service.
It ordered the Kenya Defence Forces (KDF) to restore Preston Mwanzia Kimanthi’s rank, salary and benefits.
Alternatively, the military must pay him KSh2 million in compensation, alongside applicable terminal dues.
The judgement, delivered on October 16, 2026, turns on a critical sequence of events.
Kimanthi’s convictions were quashed, and KDF subsequently revoked his discharge.
Yet the military pursued terminal payments instead of explaining why he remained excluded.
Conviction Quashed
Kimanthi enlisted in the military in 2010 and eventually attained the rank of Staff Sergeant.
He served in the medical records unit at Isiolo Level IV Hospital before his discharge.
His discharge letter, dated September 6, 2024, cited his conviction for a civil offence.
The letter expressly stated that his departure followed “ON CONVICTION OF CIVIL OFFENCE”.
The conviction arose from Sexual Offence Case E016 of 2022 before the Tawa Magistrate’s Court.
He had been convicted of rape, with an alternative charge involving an indecent act with an adult.
However, the case took a decisive turn on May 14, 2025. The High Court at Makueni overturned the convictions in Criminal Appeal E059 of 2024.
It found the visual identification evidence unreliable and unsafe, quashing the convictions and setting aside the sentences.
That decision removed the criminal convictions underpinning Kimanthi’s discharge.
It did not expressly order KDF to reinstate him, leaving his military career unresolved.
Military Reversal
Kimanthi returned to court, arguing that his continued exclusion was unlawful after the conviction collapsed.
He sought reinstatement with full salary, rank, benefits and privileges dating from his discharge.
KDF acknowledged revoking his discharge after the successful appeal. However, it said he needed to complete clearance before receiving terminal benefits.
The military described the judicial review application as premature.
The Attorney General also challenged the court’s jurisdiction and questioned whether the application met procedural requirements.
Justice Jemimah Keli rejected the jurisdictional objection.
She found the dispute concerned military employment governed by statute, alongside constitutional and administrative-law protections.
Although the Employment Act excludes KDF personnel from its ordinary application, constitutional safeguards still apply.
The court therefore examined the military’s actions under the Constitution, the KDF Act and the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Missing Reasons
The judge found a fundamental contradiction in KDF’s position. The military had revoked the discharge but continued excluding Kimanthi from service.
It then proposed processing terminal benefits without adequately explaining the legal basis for ending his employment.
The court considered Section 255 of the KDF Act, which recognises conviction for a civil offence as grounds for discharge.
But Kimanthi’s conviction had been quashed, and KDF had subsequently revoked his discharge.
The judgement found no adequate explanation for keeping him out of service.
The proposed clearance and terminal payments effectively signalled an intended dismissal.
Justice Keli found the approach unlawful, unfair and irrational. The court held that the military had violated constitutional protections for fair labour practices and fair administrative action.
It also considered the right to a fair hearing under Article 50.
The judgement raised equality concerns, noting that inconsistent treatment of comparable service members could raise discrimination questions.
Importantly, the court did not declare that every acquittal automatically cancels military disciplinary action.
Its decision rested on the conviction-based discharge, the successful appeal and KDF’s subsequent failure to restore Kimanthi.
Reinstatement Ordered
The court also considered an earlier case involving military officer Charles Maina Ngare.
In 2016, the High Court quashed Ngare’s convictions and ordered his reinstatement as a Warrant Officer II.
That precedent supported Kimanthi’s argument, particularly because KDF had already revoked his discharge.
The judge found grounds to compel reinstatement despite the general limits governing mandamus.
Kimanthi also sought compensation for financial losses, reputational harm and psychological trauma.
The judge found his claimed psychological trauma unproved, although lost livelihood likely caused financial stress.
His discharge documents recorded 16 years and 241 days of reckonable service. His payslip listed his age as 40 and a retirement date of October 28, 2025.
The court considered his pension entitlement and the constitutional violations before awarding KSh2 million.
READ ALSO: Edwin Muthomi: This is What Happens to KDF Officers Accused of Murder
The compensation is an alternative remedy, not an additional payment if reinstatement occurs.
The court declared the intended dismissal unlawful and unconstitutional.
It ordered KDF to reinstate Kimanthi with full salary, rank, benefits and privileges from his discharge date.
Alternatively, the respondents must pay his terminal dues and KSh2 million in compensation. The court also awarded costs against the respondents jointly and severally.
The ruling delivers a clear message: military authority does not excuse unlawful administrative decisions.
For Kimanthi, KDF must now restore his career or meet the court’s alternative financial award.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
