Henry Omollo Ooro v Kenya Wildlife Service & another [2014] KECA 291 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A transitional law that 'deemed' employees into a new body did not make this former wildlife officer a KWS employee because he could not prove recruitment or an appointment letter.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Effect of the transitional deeming provision in section 15(6) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management (Amendment) Act, 1989
Section 15(6) deemed former officers of the defunct Department to be officers of KWS only until they were recruited into the service or otherwise deployed by the Government; it did not automatically convert them into permanent employees of KWS.
The court construed section 15(6) as a transitional provision intended to bridge the period between the abolition of the Department and the recruitment or redeployment of its staff. Recruitment into KWS was a distinct act for which the Board of Trustees was responsible. The appellant admitted he was refused deployment by KWS, never worked for it, never received an appointment letter, remained on the Ministry's salary scale and was ultimately retired by the Ministry. Payment of salary via KWS-headed payslips was explained as an administrative arrangement pending deployment and was insufficient to establish employment.
Burden of proof on an employee claiming deemed absorption into a successor statutory body
The burden lay on the appellant to demonstrate by evidence that he was recruited by KWS, and he failed to discharge it.
Since the Board of Trustees is charged with appointing and employing members, agents and servants of the service, only recruitment by that body or deployment by the Government could perfect employment under section 15(6). The appellant conceded at trial that he never worked for KWS and never received a letter of appointment. KWS's Human Resources Officer explained that about 1,000 former employees were absorbed with appointment letters while the rest, including the appellant, were referred to the Ministry for deployment. On a first appeal the court re-evaluated the evidence and reached the same conclusion as the trial judge.
Legal principles established
#- A transitional provision deeming former departmental officers to be officers of a successor body applies only until they are recruited by the successor body or otherwise deployed by the Government; deemed appointment does not of itself constitute recruitment, and an employee claiming to have been absorbed must prove recruitment, ordinarily evidenced by a letter of appointment
- Mere payment of salary by the successor body on its headed payslips, without recruitment or deployment, does not bring an employee within a transitional deeming provision where payment was an administrative arrangement between the Government and the successor body
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Appellant to pay costs of the appeal to KWS
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- HCCC No. 1763 of 1993
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the applicable appellate statute (not expressly cited in the judgment); decided as a first appeal on re-evaluation of evidence
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Henry Omollo Ooro v Kenya Wildlife Service & another [2014] KECA 291 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Civil Appeal No. 166 of 2003. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2014/291/eng@2014-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.