Wanyoike v Medical Practiontioners and Dentist Board & another [2017] KECA 452 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that professional disciplinary boards can run their own fair processes, and courts won't stop them investigating misconduct.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the disciplinary process before PIC and the Board accorded the appellant a fair hearing
The process was fair; the appellant was informed of the complaint, invited to respond, submitted documents which were considered, and was offered a further opportunity to be heard and mediation, both of which he declined. The Board, having merely adopted PIC's findings, did not need to hear the parties afresh.
The court applied the principle that non-judicial decision-making bodies are masters of their own procedure so long as the degree of fairness appropriate to the task is achieved. PIC received the complaint, informed the appellant, obtained his documents, and stayed investigations pending the civil suit. The Board only ratified PIC's recommendations, so a fresh hearing by the Board was unnecessary. The appellant was also offered another chance to be heard but rebuffed it, defeating any claim of unfairness.
Whether the delay in the disciplinary process was prejudicial and warranted intervention
The delay was explained (the Board stayed investigations pending the civil suit, over which it had no control) and caused no prejudice; the appellant's licence was renewed throughout and he remained in practice uninterrupted.
Delay per se does not automatically quash proceedings; the applicant must prove prejudice. The appellant never complained during the delay, continued practising with annual licence renewals, and in fact himself alerted the Board to the dismissal of the civil suit. The delay was not attributable to the Board. Consequently the ground failed.
Whether mandamus and prohibition should have issued against the Board
Both remedies were properly refused: the Board retains discretion over licence issuance, and the court cannot prohibit the Board from investigating professional misconduct within its exclusive statutory mandate.
Relying on the Gathenji Njoroge decision, the court held that mandamus must command no more than the party is legally bound to perform and cannot dictate the mode of performing a discretionary duty. Prohibition was equally unavailable because only the Board can investigate its members' professional misconduct; neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal has the capacity to investigate and make findings on the merits, and such a charge transcends the complainant's personal interest.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision; the court should not act as a court of appeal over the decision maker
- Decision-making bodies other than courts, whose procedures are not laid down by statute, are masters of their own procedures provided they achieve the appropriate degree of fairness
- Delay in administrative or disciplinary proceedings per se does not automatically vitiate the decision; the applicant must prove actual prejudice
- Mandamus cannot issue to command a discretionary act, nor compel performance in a specific way where the statute leaves discretion as to the mode of performance
- The High Court cannot prohibit a professional disciplinary body from investigating professional misconduct, since investigation of members lies within the body's exclusive mandate and transcends the complainant's personal interest
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C. Misc. Appl. No. 70 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over the High Court's judicial review judgment (Notice of Appeal filed 7th April 2015)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wanyoike v Medical Practiontioners and Dentist Board & another [2017] KECA 452 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Civil Appeal No. 307 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2017/452/eng@2017-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.