Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition dated 7th May 2019· [2019] KEELRC 726 (KLR)

Joseph C. Koech v Baringo County Assemble & 2 others [2019] KEELRC 726 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 September 2019
MOMaureen Onyango
3,620 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a county clerk's challenge to his removal because he skipped his own disciplinary hearings and filed duplicate court cases.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Joseph C. Koech, formerly Clerk of the Baringo County Assembly and Secretary to the County Assembly Service Board, petitioned the Employment and Labour Relations Court challenging his removal. He sought declarations of unfair labour practice and unfair administrative action, orders of prohibition and certiorari, reinstatement, payment of allowances and damages, contending that he was denied adequate notice, access to documents, and that his removal was discriminatory on community grounds. The Respondents, through a Replying Affidavit sworn by the Speaker, David Kipkorir Kiplagat, maintained that the removal followed Section 23 of the County Assemblies Service Act: charges were framed, the petitioner responded, obtained two adjournments of the board hearing, then declined to attend on 11th April 2019, and failed to appear before the Select Committee formed on 25th April 2019, which recommended his removal by assembly resolution. The court framed two issues: whether the termination breached the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, and whether the petitioner was entitled to the reliefs sought. It found that the petitioner was given every opportunity to be heard but squandered it, that the disciplinary process met the tests of legality, rationality, procedural propriety and natural justice under Articles 41, 47 and 50, and that the petitioner's filing of three successive petitions in Eldoret and Nairobi constituted forum shopping and abuse of court process. Applying the Nampak Corrugated principle against lightly interfering with an employer's sanction, the court held the petitioner undeserving of the orders sought and dismissed the petition with costs on 27th September 2019.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the disciplinary process and termination violated Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act

Holding

The disciplinary process met the tests of legality, rationality, procedural propriety and natural justice; the petitioner was given every opportunity to be heard but squandered it

Reasoning

The petitioner was served with charges, responded to them, obtained two adjournments of the board hearing, then declined to attend on 11th April 2019, and failed to attend the Select Committee on 29th April 2019. The committee waited until 5 pm before proceeding. The court found the process lawful, rational and procedurally proper under Articles 41, 47 and 50 and the Fair Administrative Action Act.

p. 4
02

Whether the petitioner's multiplicity of proceedings constituted abuse of court process

Holding

Filing three petitions to stop the removal proceedings was forum shopping and abuse of court process

Reasoning

The petitioner filed Eldoret High Court Petition No. 5 of 2019, Eldoret ELRC Petition No. 3 of 2019, and the present petition, all aimed at stopping the removal proceedings. The court held this was a classic case of abuse of court process, disqualifying him from the reliefs sought.

p. 4
03

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought

Holding

Not entitled; the petition was dismissed with costs

Reasoning

Having found no breach of constitutional rights and having found forum shopping and abuse of process, the court held the petitioner undeserving of the orders sought and dismissed the petition with costs.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A court should not lightly interfere with the sanction imposed by an employer unless the employer acted unfairly in imposing it; the question is whether the sanction was reasonable
  • For a termination of employment to pass the fairness test, there must be both substantive and procedural fairness (cited by counsel)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 10, 27, 41, 47, 48, 50, 174, 236
  • County Assembly Service ActNo. 24 of 2017, Section 23 (including 23(2), (3), (4), (5))
  • County Government ActSections 47, 76
  • Employment ActSections 41, 43, 45(2)
  • Public Finance Management Actnot specified
  • Fair Administrative Action Actnot specified

Cases cited (8)

  • Walter Ogal Anuro -V- TSC
    [2013] eKLR
  • County Assembly of Bungoma & 2 Others -V- Stephen Nandela and 2 Others
    Civil Appeal 336 of 2014
  • Ondima Kabese –v- Trojan International Ltd
    [2017] eKLR
  • Cecilia Wangechi Ndungu –v- County Assembly of Nyeri
  • Birir v County Governement of Narok
  • Munawar Shuttle –V- County Government of Kilifi
  • Nampak Corrugated Wandeville -V- Khoza
    (JA14/98) [1998] ZALAC 24
  • Silas Kipruto & Another V. The County Government of Baringo & Another
    ELRC Cause No. 30/2014
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 10, 27, 41, 47, 48, 50, 174 and 236 of the Constitution of Kenya and County Assembly Service Act No. 24 of 2017

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joseph C. Koech v Baringo County Assemble & 2 others [2019] KEELRC 726 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Petition dated 7th May 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/726/eng@2019-09-27

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