Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNotice of motion dated 5th December 2017 (Judicial Review)· [2018] KEELRC 1794 (KLR)

Republic v County Secretary, County Government of Tharaka Nithi & another Ex-Parte Kenneth Ntwiga Kanga [2018] KEELRC 1794 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya (judicial review jurisdiction)
11 May 2018
1,955 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court quashed a county board secretary's compulsory leave because removing him without the required County Assembly approval was unlawful.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex-parte Applicant, Secretary of the Tharaka Nithi County Public Service Board, sought judicial review orders of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus arising from his being sent on compulsory leave by letter dated 11 September 2017 on the ground that he was under police investigation. He contended the decision was made in bad faith, in excess of power, and was an illegal attempt to remove him from office in circumvention of Section 58(5) of the County Governments Act, and that his salaries and emoluments had been unlawfully withheld since August 2017. The Respondents, through a replying affidavit of Dr. Fredrick Njeru Kamunde, raised a preliminary jurisdictional objection relying on R v East Berkshire Health Authority ex parte Walsh, asserting the court could not entertain judicial review to enforce contractual employment rights, and further alleged the Applicant had committed gross misconduct and abused office as found in related ELRC proceedings. The court rejected the jurisdictional objection, holding that judicial review examines process rather than merits and that remedies are available where employment is statutorily underpinned, following the KUSU v Masinde Muliro and KIPPRA decisions. Applying Section 58(5) of the County Governments Act, it found the compulsory leave was an unsanctioned removal, the suspension not having been approved by the County Assembly. Certiorari issued quashing the 11 September 2017 decision, with its effect suspended for 30 days to allow lawful regularisation. Prohibition and mandamus were not granted in the final orders. Delivered at Meru on 11 May 2018 by Nzioki wa Makau J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the court over judicial review in employment matters

Holding

The court has jurisdiction notwithstanding the rule in R v East Berkshire Health Authority ex parte Walsh, since judicial review examines process rather than merits and remedies are available where employment is statutorily underpinned.

Reasoning

The court reasoned that judicial review does not deal with the merits but with whether the decision-maker had jurisdiction, heard affected persons, and followed correct procedure. It adopted Odunga J's decision in Kenya Universities Staff Union and the Court of Appeal's KIPPRA decision holding that judicial review remedies are available where a contract of employment has statutory underpinning or fundamental rights are grossly violated. The Secretary's removal is governed by statute, so process-based review lies.

p. 2
02

Lawfulness of the compulsory leave decision

Holding

The decision was unlawful because the suspension operated as a removal not sanctioned by the County Assembly as Section 58(5) requires, and it was quashed by certiorari.

Reasoning

Section 58(5) of the County Governments Act permits removal of Board members only on grounds set out for removal of constitutional commission members under Article 251(1) and by a seventy-five percent vote of the county assembly. The compulsory leave was in effect a removal that was never sanctioned by the County Assembly, and the removal of the previous County Secretary was likewise not shown to comply with Section 58(b). Certiorari therefore issued.

p. 3
03

Whether to suspend the effect of the quashing order

Holding

The court suspended the effect of the certiorari order for 30 days to allow the Board to regularise the office lawfully.

Reasoning

Because the office of Secretary already had a substantive holder installed pursuant to Section 58, immediate quashing would create disruption. The court, balancing the illegality found against administrative continuity, suspended the effect of its order for thirty days to enable the 2nd Respondent to comply with the resolutions necessary to effect the changes lawfully.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Judicial review concerns the process by which a decision is reached, not the merits of the decision.
  • Judicial review remedies are available in employment matters where the contract of employment has statutory underpinning.
  • Removal of the Secretary of a County Public Service Board must comply with Section 58(5) of the County Governments Act, including a vote of not less than seventy five percent of all members of the county assembly.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Order of certiorari to bring into the court and quash the decision contained in the letter dated 11th September 2017 sending the ex-parte Applicant on compulsory leave
  2. 2.Suspension of the effect of the certiorari order for 30 days to enable the 2nd Respondent comply with the resolutions necessary to effect lawful changes in the office of Secretary of the Tharaka Nithi County Public Service Board

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 162(2)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 165(5)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 251(1)
  • County Governments ActSection 58(1)(c)
  • County Governments ActSection 58(5)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Act

Cases cited (7)

  • R v East Berkshire Health Authority ex parte Walsh
    [1984] 3 ALL ER 425
  • Stephen Munene Njagi and Joseph Marangu Shem v Tharaka Nithi County Government & Another (Nyeri ELRC Cause No. 337 of 2017 consolidated with Cause No. 342 of 2017)
  • Kenya Universities Staff Union v University Council of Masinde Muliro University of Science And Technology & 2 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Republic vs. Mwangi S. Kimenyi Ex-Parte Kenya Institute for Public Policy and Research Analysis (KIPPRA) (Civil Appeal 160 of 2008)
    [2013] eKLR
  • CHIEF CONSTABLE OF NORTH WALES POLICE v EVANS
    (1982) I WLR 1155
  • Commissioner of Lands – vs- Kunste Hotel Limited
    1995-1998 1 E.A. 1 (CAK)
  • Eric Makokha & Others – vs- Lawrence Sagini & Others
    CA No. 20 of 1994 at NRB
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction in employment matters, resting on Article 162(2) and 165(5) of the Constitution and the Employment and Labour Relations Act, as interpreted in Kenya Universities Staff Union v University Council of Masinde Muliro University

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v County Secretary, County Government of Tharaka Nithi & another Ex-Parte Kenneth Ntwiga Kanga [2018] KEELRC 1794 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Notice of motion dated 5th December 2017 (Judicial Review). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1794/eng@2018-05-11

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