Elizabeth Chepkoech Langat v Bomet County Government & 2 others [2016] KEELRC 717 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a county governor cannot fire a cabinet member without valid reasons and fair process, and awarded her a year's pay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court had jurisdiction over the question of remedies raised by the Respondents
The purported jurisdictional objection went to the merits of the remedies sought, not to jurisdiction; the court declined to treat it as a jurisdictional issue
The Respondents invoked Article 23(3)(e) to argue reinstatement was unavailable since damages were not sought. The Court found the argument incomprehensible and held the contentions went to whether the Petitioner had established a case for the remedies sought and whether the remedies were appropriate, not to the Court's competence to hear the matter.
Whether the removal of a CEC member by a Governor under section 31(a) of the County Governments Act requires valid and compelling reasons
Yes; the pleasure doctrine is dead and the reasons for dismissal determine whether the power was exercised reasonably
Following the Court of Appeal in Narok County Government v Richard Bwogo Birir, the court held that although section 31(a) permits dismissal at any time where the governor considers it appropriate or necessary, the exercise of that power is measured against Articles 236, 41(1) and 47 of the Constitution. Reasons must be valid and compelling and are justiciable; the court may examine the merits of the reasons, not merely the process.
Whether the performance-based reasons and allegations of misconduct were valid and compelling
No; no performance targets or evaluation criteria were disclosed, and the misconduct allegations lacked particulars, prejudicing the Petitioner
The Respondents never explained what performance targets had been agreed or how evaluation was done, nor that the Petitioner was facilitated with resources or budgets. The show cause notice gave no dates of alleged absence or details of alleged misappropriation, and particulars sought were never supplied. The one-day effective notice (delivered Sunday 27 March for a 29 March hearing) was insufficient given the seriousness of the allegations.
Whether removal under the guise of cabinet re-organisation could bypass constitutional protections
The Court indicated disapproval but declined to make a definitive ruling since parties had not addressed the point
The Governor re-organised his cabinet on the same date the removal decision was taken, and the Petitioner's name was omitted. While a governor has wide discretion to re-organise government, the court observed that the text and spirit of the constitutional and statutory framework appear to frown upon removing an executive through re-organisation without regard to protections for public officers, though it confined itself to that observation.
Appropriate remedies
Declaration of unconstitutionality plus one year's gross wages as damages; certiorari and a declaration of continued office refused
The Court balanced judicial restraint in matters touching an elected Governor's executive appointments against the need for accountability. It issued the declaration sought but declined certiorari and a declaration that the Petitioner remained in office. As bad faith was neither alleged nor proved, compensation was paid from public funds; the Court warned that proved bad faith would attract personal liability.
Legal principles established
#- A governor's power under section 31(a) of the County Governments Act to dismiss a county executive committee member must be exercised for valid and compelling reasons, which the court may examine
- A public officer shall not be dismissed or removed from office without due process of law, and removal under section 31(a) must be measured against Articles 236, 41(1) and 47 of the Constitution
- Affording an employee or public officer sufficient time and facilities to respond to a show cause notice is an ingredient of fair administrative action and fair labour practices
- State/public officers are on notice that flagrant breach of the Constitution attracts personal damages and costs where bad faith is proved
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the removal of the Petitioner from office was unconstitutional, unlawful and unfair
- 2.Award of damages equivalent to 1 year's gross wages, being Kshs 4,560,000/-
- 3.Costs to the Petitioner
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the judgment as provided; Petition brought under the Constitution (Articles 41, 47 and 236) and the County Governments Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Elizabeth Chepkoech Langat v Bomet County Government & 2 others [2016] KEELRC 717 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Petition No 17 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/717/eng@2016-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.