Amos William Omollo v County Government of Kisumu Governor, Kisumu & 3 others [2018] KEELRC 2151 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court declined to stop Kisumu County's disciplinary process against its County Attorney, ruling that investigations are the employer's domain unless rights are actually violated.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case for interim relief
No prima facie case was established; no rights were shown to have been infringed or threatened by sending him on compulsory leave pending investigations and inviting him to show cause
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles and Mrao's definition of a prima facie case. The letter of appointment was signed by the County Secretary, the same office that sent him on leave, so the capacity challenge failed. At the investigative stage the employer's actions were lawful and no right had been infringed.
Whether the court should halt the disciplinary process at its investigative stage
The court will not interfere absent exceptional circumstances or proof of violation of the law or process; stopping the investigation before the employee responds would interfere with the employer's administrative functions
Relying on Rebecca Ann Maina v JKUAT and Alfred Nyungu Kimungui v Bomas of Kenya, the court held that it should not take over managerial prerogatives at the workplace. Intervention is warranted only where the process is marred by irregularities or stage-managed towards dismissal, which was not demonstrated.
Whether pending court cases (sub judice) bar an employer from questioning the employee's conduct in those matters
No. The employee's conduct, not the outcome of the cases, is what the employer seeks to investigate; sub judice is no excuse
The court held that the disciplinary queries concern the Petitioner's personal conduct in the pending matters, not how the courts would deal with the cases. As an advocate he could be asked to explain his conduct outside court without prejudicing the litigation.
Legal principles established
#- Courts should not intervene in an employer's disciplinary process at the investigative stage absent exceptional circumstances or proof of violation of the law or process
- A pending court case cannot be a shield against an employer's administrative inquiry into an employee's conduct - the sub judice rule does not bar a show-cause response
- Under section 51 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, the power to appoint includes the power to remove, suspend or dismiss
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Applicant's application for interim relief pending the petition
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; petition brought under Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (employment/labour relations and fair administrative action)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amos William Omollo v County Government of Kisumu Governor, Kisumu & 3 others [2018] KEELRC 2151 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Petition (ELRC, Kisumu) – not stated. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2151/eng@2018-04-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.