Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (appeal from ELRC Petition dated 27th September, 2019, Kisumu)

Oloo v Kisumu County Assembly Service Board & another; O.C.S. Kisumu Central Police Station & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Civil Appeal 008 of 2020) [2025] KECA 333 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
21 February 2025
4,925 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~20 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that impeaching a county assembly speaker with only 90 minutes' notice violated his constitutional right to a fair hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant, former Speaker of the second Kisumu County Assembly, was impeached on 18th September 2019 after being invited by email and WhatsApp at 1.26 p.m. to appear before the assembly at 3.00 p.m. the same day to answer an impeachment motion presented the previous day. The Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu dismissed his petition on 10th December 2019, finding due process was followed. On first appeal, the Court of Appeal at Kisumu re-evaluated the evidence and framed two issues: whether the impeachment was legal and accorded with natural justice, and what remedies flowed if not. The court held that one-and-a-half hours' notice was insufficient to prepare a defence, and that Standing Order 61(3) did not oblige the assembly to commence and conclude the impeachment within a single day; the assembly had until 25th September 2019 but instead approved the motion, summoned the appellant, convened the sitting and impeached him in his absence within three hours, executing a pre-determined plan. His rights to fair hearing under Article 50(1) and fair administrative action under Article 47(1) and (2) were infringed, irrespective of the strength of the charges. Reinstatement prayers were abandoned as the assembly's term had expired, so the court awarded six months' salary plus all allowances as reparation and costs in both courts. The appeal was accordingly allowed in part and the decision below reversed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the impeachment process accorded with the rules of natural justice

Holding

It did not. The appellant received only one-and-a-half hours' notice to answer serious charges; the assembly rushed approval, service, hearing and impeachment within three hours despite having seven days under Standing Order 61(3), thereby infringing Articles 50(1) and 47(1) and (2) of the Constitution.

Reasoning

The court, as first appellate court, re-evaluated the evidence and found the impeachment executed a pre-determined plan irrespective of the rules of natural justice. The seven-day window under Standing Order 61(3) would have allowed adequate preparation; instead the motion was approved, the appellant summoned, the sitting convened and the impeachment passed in three hours. The right to fair hearing under Article 50 applies to civil and quasi-judicial proceedings such as impeachment, and its breach is established regardless of the merits of the charges.

p. 8
02

What remedies flow from the established violations

Holding

Reinstatement was impossible because the assembly's term had expired, so the court awarded six months' salary plus allowances as reparation, with costs in both courts.

Reasoning

Guided by Gitobu Imanyara, constitutional damages are public law remedies limited to what is appropriate and just, aimed at vindicating rights. The appellant lost earnings and his legitimate expectation to serve a full term. Six months' salary including allowances was held an adequate assessment of damages in lieu of the abandoned reinstatement prayers.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • A one-and-a-half-hour notice to answer serious impeachment charges is not adequate notice and violates the rights to fair hearing under Article 50 and fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution.
  • Standing Order 61(3) requiring a removal motion to be concluded within seven days does not oblige an assembly to commence and conclude the impeachment on the same day; the full seven-day window must be used consistently with natural justice.
  • A breach of the right to fair hearing in impeachment proceedings is established irrespective of the strength of the charges against the removed office-holder.
  • Damages for constitutional violations are public law remedies exercised as an 'appropriate and just' remedy, vindicating rights rather than being compensatory or punitive.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the appellant's right to fair hearing and fair administrative action were violated and breached by the 2nd respondent when it purported to impeach him as Speaker of the second County Assembly of Kisumu
  2. 2.The appellant shall be paid reparation of six (6) months' salary, including all allowances due to him, by the 2nd respondent
  3. 3.The appellant shall have the costs both in the Employment and Labour Relations Court and before the Court of Appeal
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Petition dated 27th September, 2019 (case number not stated)
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction under the applicable appellate framework (specific provision not cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Oloo v Kisumu County Assembly Service Board & another; O.C.S. Kisumu Central Police Station & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Civil Appeal 008 of 2020) [2025] KECA 333 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (appeal from ELRC Petition dated 27th September, 2019, Kisumu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/333/eng@2025-02-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.