John Githigi Mugwe & 2 others v Clerk, Kiambu County Assembly & 4 others [2018] KEELRC 1568 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A dismissed Kiambu CEC member's judicial review failed because the court would not interfere with the County Assembly's vetting powers, though dismissals of CEC members must still follow due process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court has jurisdiction over judicial review of a Governor's dismissal of a CEC member
The court has jurisdiction because the application is hinged on the Constitution, fair administrative action and rules of natural justice; a state officer's terms are regulated by the Constitution and not purely political
Relying on Republic v Evans Odhiambo Kidero Ex Parte Evans Ondieki and County Government of Nyeri v Cecilia Wangechi Ndungu, the court found that CEC members are state officers whose removal engages Article 236 due process guarantees and fair administrative action, not merely political questions. Section 31(a) of the County Government Act is subservient to Article 236(a) and (b) of the Constitution.
Whether the court can grant leave that would restrain the County Assembly's vetting process
No - the court lacks jurisdiction because the vetting process falls within the County Assembly's exclusive sphere under the doctrine of exclusive cognizance
The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Justus Kariuki Mate & Another v Martin Nyaga Wambora, which adopted the dominant principle of parliamentary privilege: courts must exercise restraint so their proceedings do not stray into Parliament's exclusive sphere. Since the County Assembly had not yet acted and the leave would interfere with its legitimate prerogative, the court declined jurisdiction over the whole application.
Legal principles established
#- A Governor's power under Section 31(a) of the County Government Act to dismiss a CEC member must be exercised reasonably and for the public good, and must be read subject to Article 236 of the Constitution (adopted from County Government of Nyeri v Cecilia Wangechi Ndungu and Republic v Evans Kidero Ex Parte Evans Ondieki)
- Matters falling within the exclusive sphere of a legislative assembly are protected by the doctrine of exclusive cognizance and courts should exercise restraint (adopted from Justus Kariuki Mate & Another v Martin Nyaga Wambora)
Court orders
#- 1.The court rested the case without determining any other issues, having found no jurisdiction to entertain the application
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 Rules 1(2), (3) & (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act Cap 26; Article 47(1) and (2) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Githigi Mugwe & 2 others v Clerk, Kiambu County Assembly & 4 others [2018] KEELRC 1568 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Judicial Review Application dated 11.5.2018 (Chamber Summons). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1568/eng@2018-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.