Judicial Service Commission v Eric Michael Karanja Kamande
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a public officer who met a bidder during a tender process, ruling the disciplinary process was fair and lawful.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the respondent filed the proper pleadings in seeking relief, i.e. whether the constitutional petition met the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold
- 2.Whether the learned judge of the ELRC erred in holding that the respondent was unlawfully, unprocedurally and unfairly terminated from employment
- 3.Whether rule 25 of the third schedule to the Judicial Service Act mandatorily required a separate investigation before a disciplinary hearing
- 4.Whether the disciplinary process observed the constitutional principles of a fair hearing, including the failure to secure the complainant's attendance
- 5.Whether the reasons for termination were valid, having regard to the respondent's meeting with a bidder during the tender process
- 6.Whether the respondent was entitled to constitutional damages of Kshs 2,000,000 on his cross-appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the constitutional petition met the pleading threshold
The petition satisfied the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold as restated in Mumo Matemu; the respondent cited Article 47 and pleaded the manner of breach, so the claim was properly brought as a constitutional petition.
The court restated the requirement of reasonable precision in identifying the infringed provisions and the manner of infringement, while accepting that precision demands neither formulaic prescription of facts nor formalistic utterance of constitutional provisions. The respondent had specifically pleaded denial of an opportunity to cross-examine the star witness as an infraction of Article 47, which sufficed.
Whether rule 25 of the third schedule to the Judicial Service Act mandated a separate investigation before a disciplinary hearing
No. The provisions under rule 25 are 'proceedings for dismissal', disciplinary in nature; the committee under rule 25(3) is not confined to investigation, and there are no transitionary clauses making it purely investigative.
The court disagreed with the ELRC judge's interpretation. The heading of rule 25 shows the provisions are disciplinary; the same committee proceeds to the hearing under rule 25(4); the word 'investigations' does not mean the committee must 'down its tools' after investigating, since legitimacy of charges can only be established at a hearing where the employee defends himself.
Whether the disciplinary process met constitutional fair-hearing standards despite the complainant's non-attendance
Yes. The respondent was served with charges, responded, appeared before the committee, cross-examined witnesses, and raised no objections; the complainant was summoned twice and failed to attend, and the committee was entitled to dispense with his attendance.
The court found the charges complied with rule 25(1); the respondent was notified, invited to respond, given a chance to defend himself and ably cross-examined the other witnesses. The committee, not being a court or constitutionally established investigative agency, lacked power to compel Okeyo's attendance, and awaiting his evidence would have further impeded the hearing. The respondent's objections were an afterthought.
Whether the reasons for termination were valid
Yes. Meeting a bidder during the tender evaluation process without disclosure to co-committee members created a perception of bias justifying a finding of gross misconduct.
Applying the perceived-bias principle from Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Lannon, the court held that the law looks at the impression given to right-minded persons, not the actual state of mind of the decision-maker. The respondent did not deny the meeting and did not disclose it; his explanations did not displace the appearance of impropriety.
Whether the respondent was entitled to constitutional damages on cross-appeal
No. Having found the termination proper, fair and lawful, the court found no merit in the cross-appeal for Kshs 2,000,000 in damages.
The cross-appeal sought damages under Article 23 on the premise of apparent constitutional breaches. Since the court had upheld the disciplinary process and termination as compliant with the Constitution, the Employment Act, the Judicial Service Act and the Fair Administrative Action Act, the foundational breaches were not established and the damages claim failed.
Legal principles established
#- Rule 25 of the third schedule to the Judicial Service Act does not mandatorily require a separate investigation before a disciplinary hearing; the Chief Justice has a wide discretion whether to hold an inquiry, but any process must respect constitutional fair-hearing principles.
- The committee or panel appointed under rule 25(3) is a disciplinary committee, not a court or independent investigative agency, and does not possess coercive powers to compel witnesses that have not been donated to it.
- A member of a tender evaluation committee who meets a tenderer during the evaluation process and fails to disclose the meeting gives rise to a perception of bias, whatever the purpose of the meeting.
- A constitutional petition pleading the specific constitutional provision infringed and the manner of infringement satisfies the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is allowed to the extent that the judgment of the ELRC is set aside
- 2.Substituted therefor is an order that the respondent's petition amended on 19th October 2020 is dismissed with costs to the appellant
- 3.The respondent's cross-appeal is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- ELRC Petition No. 50 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Employment and Labour Relations Court (appeal by way of retrial)
Relief refused
#Reinstatement without loss of benefits, allowances and salary (as ordered by the ELRC)
The ELRC judgment was set aside; the disciplinary process and termination were found lawful and fair
Constitutional damages of Kshs 2,000,000 on the cross-appeal
No constitutional breaches were established; the termination was proper, fair and lawful
Costs
The respondent's petition is dismissed with costs to the appellant; the respondent's cross-appeal is dismissed with costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The upshot of our above analysis is that the present appeal has merit. It is hereby allowed to the extent that the judgment of the ELRC is hereby set aside.
We substitute the same for an order that the respondent’s petition amended on 19th October 2020 is dismissed with costs to the appellant. The respondent’s cross appeal as found hereinabove, lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs.
In our view, rule 16 gives the Chief Justice wide discretionary powers to decide as to whether an inquiry ought to be done prior to a disciplinary hearing. The rule does not mandatorily establish that the inquiry must be conducted first.
When a member of the tender evaluation committee meets a tenderer during the tender evaluation process, a perception of bias arises, the purpose of the meeting notwithstanding.
The committee is not a court or an investigative agency as established in the Constitution. It is for this reason that it does not have powers to do certain acts since those powers have not been donated to it.
As a first appellate court, an appeal is by way of a retrial and the principles upon which this Court acts in such an appeal are well settled.
Issues in the judgment
#Wrong year for the ELRC judgment in the appellant's prayer
Internally inconsistent chronology of the disciplinary hearing and interdiction dates
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Judicial Service Commission v Eric Michael Karanja Kamande", Case Analysis (2024). Civil Appeal E403 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1939/eng@2024-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.