Republic v County Assembly of Siaya County & another Exparte Siaya County Public Service Board [2018] KEELRC 166 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan High Court ruled that county assembly committee reports containing only recommendations cannot be quashed, and state organs cannot claim constitutional rights violations.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the County Assembly followed due process and accorded the ex-parte Applicant a fair hearing
Yes. The Assembly acted on public petitions, requested documents, invited the Applicant and County Secretary to appear before the Committee on 29th January, 2018, and its proceedings were transparent. Due process and fair hearing were accorded.
The court found that the Assembly acted pursuant to two public petitions, wrote to the County Secretary for documents, and invited the ex-parte Applicant to appear before the Committee. The Applicant's representative, Mr. Anyona, appeared but chose to challenge the Assembly's authority rather than respond to the allegations. The court held the process transparent and in line with standing orders, and declined to interfere out of respect for separation of powers.
Whether the Assembly's report was a reviewable decision
No. The report contained recommendations only; the decisions (disciplinary action, nullification of appointments) vest in the appointing authority, not the Assembly.
Relying on Speaker, Nakuru County Assembly v Commission on Revenue Allocation, the court held that the Assembly's recommendations are not binding decisions and thus not amenable to quashing by certiorari. Any aggrieved affected officers should challenge adverse decisions of the appointing authority once made, not the Assembly's recommendations.
Whether the ex-parte Applicant, a state organ, can claim violation of its constitutional rights
No. A state organ is not a natural person and cannot claim Bill of Rights protections under Article 22.
Adopting the Respondent's submissions supported by Kenya Bus Service and Speaker, Nakuru County Assembly, the court held that the County Public Service Board, being a state organ and not a natural person, cannot allege infringement of rights and fundamental freedoms under the Bill of Rights, whether by horizontal or vertical application under Article 20(1).
Legal principles established
#- Recommendations of a County Assembly committee are not binding decisions and are not amenable to judicial review by way of certiorari.
- A state organ cannot claim violation of its rights and fundamental freedoms under the Bill of Rights.
- Court interference with County Assembly proceedings should be reserved for extreme situations amounting to abrogation of the Constitution, in deference to separation of powers.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 7th March, 2018 seeking an order of certiorari to quash the Report of the County Assembly of Siaya Committee on Governance and Administration is dismissed.
- 2.No order as to costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 165(3)(a) and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (judicial review of administrative action)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v County Assembly of Siaya County & another Exparte Siaya County Public Service Board [2018] KEELRC 166 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Notice of Motion dated 7th March, 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/166/eng@2018-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.