Republic v Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) & 2 others Ex-parte Samuel Otieno Obudo & 6 others [2018] KEELRC 2212 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that suspended public officers interdicted under the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act must still receive their full allowances.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the judgment of 27.7.2017 contained an error apparent on the face of the record because it applied the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act while the ex parte applicants faced Penal Code charges
No error apparent; the court correctly applied the Act since the applicants were interdicted under it
The court noted that the applicants were interdicted under Sections 62(1)-(4) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, not under the Penal Code. Section 62(1)(b) of that Act provides that a suspended public officer on half pay continues to receive full allowances. Since the interdiction was effected under that Act, it - not the Penal Code - governs the payment of allowances during suspension. The fact that the applicants were later charged with Penal Code offences does not change the law applicable to the interdiction.
Whether there is sufficient reason to warrant review
No; a wrong application of an Act by the judge would not suffice, and the court found no valid reason for review
Relying on Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo, an error must be one that stares one in the face with no two opinions possible; a possible view adopted in the original record cannot be a ground for review. Relying on Stephen Gathua Kimani v Nancy Wanjira Waruingi, 'any other sufficient reason' must be analogous to the enumerated grounds. The applicant's complaint that the judge wrongly applied the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act did not meet this threshold.
Legal principles established
#- Where a public officer was interdicted under Sections 62(1)-(4) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, that Act (which preserves full allowances to a suspended officer on half pay) is the applicable law, not the Penal Code.
- A mere erroneous decision or a wrong view of the law is not a ground for review; an error apparent on the face of the record must stare one in the face without room for two opinions.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 15.9.2017 is dismissed
- 2.Costs awarded to the Respondent/Claimants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 25 & 50 of the Constitution; Sections 3, 16 and 20 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (Cap 234B), 2016; Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) & 2 others Ex-parte Samuel Otieno Obudo & 6 others [2018] KEELRC 2212 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 15.9.2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2212/eng@2018-03-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.