Enock Nyakundi Onchwari v National Authority for the Campaign Against Alcohol and Drug Abuse & 2 others [2016] KEELRC 623 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a NACADA employee's challenge to his interdiction, ruling the disciplinary process fairly followed natural justice and internal policy.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the interdiction process breached natural justice and the applicant's right to fair administrative action
No breach: the applicant received a show cause letter, responded in writing, was given about three months' notice of the hearing and was heard by a duly authorised committee
The court found that the applicant was issued with a notice to show cause under clause 9.10.2 of the NACADA Human Resource Policy and gave a written reply. He was notified to appear before the staff and welfare board committee by a letter dated 27th March 2015 and appeared on 18th June 2015, roughly three months later. He neither requested documents nor sought more time, and did not demonstrate he was unprepared. The court held the respondents did not derogate from the procedure and no excesses were exhibited.
Whether the interdiction beyond six months without completion of investigations rendered the action unlawful
The suit was filed before the six-month period expired and the interim orders effectively cushioned the respondents against the six-month rule; the remaining period restarts from judgment
Clause 9.14.1.5 of the NACADA Human Resource Policy requires investigations to be completed within six months of interdiction. The interdiction letter was dated 28th October 2015 and the suit was filed on 4th April 2016, before expiry of six months. The interim orders obtained stayed further action. The court thus ordered the remaining period to run afresh from judgment, giving respondents less than 24 days to conclude the process failing which the applicant would have recourse under clause 9.14.
Legal principles established
#- The requirements of natural justice depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry and the rules under which the tribunal acts, provided the affected person had a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case
- A court on judicial review is not a court of appeal over the decider and will not go into the merits of the decision
- An employee on interdiction must be given notice of the charges, an opportunity to respond to a show cause letter and a hearing before a duly authorised body for the process to comply with natural justice
Court orders
#- 1.The judicial review application is dismissed
- 2.Costs to follow the outcome
- 3.The remaining time of the six months interdiction period runs again from the date of the judgment
- 4.The respondents have less than 24 days to conclude the pending disciplinary process, failing which the applicant has recourse under clause 9.14 of the NACADA Human Resource Policy
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under the Constitution and Fair Administrative Action Act, transferred from the High Court to this court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Enock Nyakundi Onchwari v National Authority for the Campaign Against Alcohol and Drug Abuse & 2 others [2016] KEELRC 623 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). JR No 2 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/623/eng@2016-10-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.