Paul Christopher Kimali Kioko v Governor of the County of Kitui & 2 others [2018] KEELRC 2427 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a county official's claim of unfair dismissal because he skipped the disciplinary hearing he was invited to attend.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioner's constitutional rights under Articles 10, 47 and 236 were violated by the interdiction and termination
No violation - the Petitioner was offered an opportunity to be heard before the investigation committee and declined to attend without justification
The Court found the Petitioner was invited to appear before the committee appointed by the Governor to answer allegations of gross misconduct. His three excuses - pending court case, vague allegations, and indisposition - were each rejected: no court order barred the proceedings, he made no attempt to obtain particulars, and no medical certificate was produced. Having failed to appear, he could not use the Court as a substitute disciplinary panel.
Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents had disciplinary authority over the Petitioner as a County Executive Committee Member
The Governor had power under Section 31(a) of the County Government Act to dismiss a CECM if he considered it appropriate and necessary, subject to acting non-arbitrarily
The Petitioner was appointed pursuant to Article 179(2) of the Constitution and Section 30(2)(b) of the County Government Act, becoming a state officer. Relying on County Government of Nyeri v Cecilia Wangechi Ndung'u, the Court held the Governor's dismissal power must be exercised for reasons, not arbitrarily, but that the opportunity to respond satisfies this requirement - which the Petitioner was given and forfeited.
Whether the interdiction was lawful
The interdiction was lawful, being effected in accordance with the Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual for the Public Service and the County Public Service Human Resource Manual
The Court dismissed the complaint about the interdiction of 10th December 2015, noting that the interdiction letter contained all the allegations and that the interdiction followed the applicable public service human resource manuals. The Petitioner's grievance that the allegations were too general was also rejected as he made no attempt to seek particulars from the Respondents.
Legal principles established
#- Under Section 31(a) of the County Government Act, the Governor may dismiss a County Executive Committee Member only for reasons that make the dismissal appropriate or necessary, and may not act arbitrarily or capriciously
- Appropriateness or necessity for dismissal can only be determined if the officer is granted an opportunity to respond to the allegations
- An employee who squanders an opportunity to be heard cannot later complain of not being heard; an employee cannot turn the court into a disciplinary panel
Court orders
#- 1.The Petitioner's Petition is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional petition jurisdiction alleging violation of Articles 10, 47 and 236 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Paul Christopher Kimali Kioko v Governor of the County of Kitui & 2 others [2018] KEELRC 2427 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Petition No 2 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2427/eng@2018-02-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.