Republic v Wilson Sossion Secretary General Knut & 2 others; Valentino Muriunga (Interested Party) Ex Parte Caxton Miungi [2020] KEELRC 38 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court quashed KNUT's suspension of a branch official because the union's constitution gave the Secretary General no power to do it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Respondent (NEC/Secretary General) had jurisdiction to suspend a branch Executive Secretary
He had no such power under the KNUT constitution; suspension of a branch officer is by a two-thirds majority of the Branch Executive Committee.
Article X of the KNUT constitution vests the power to suspend a branch officer in the Branch Executive Committee acting by a two-thirds majority decision of all members entitled to attend and vote. The NEC's role regarding branch officials is appellate, arising after the branch process. Since the 1st Respondent lacked jurisdiction at the first instance, the purported suspension was illegal, null and void irrespective of the reasons relied upon.
Whether the decision-making process complied with fair hearing requirements
No evidence that the BEC met or that the Ex Parte Applicant was heard before the ouster.
The court found no evidence that the Branch Executive Committee as constituted under the KNUT constitution met to deliberate on the removal, nor any evidence that the Ex Parte Applicant was given a hearing before the purported suspension. In judicial review the court examines process, not merits, and the absence of a hearing and of the mandated organ's involvement rendered the decision amenable to quashing.
Whether the application was premature given the ongoing disciplinary process
Rejected; the ouster had already been effected and was without jurisdiction.
The 1st and 2nd Respondents argued the application was premature since internal disciplinary procedures were ongoing and the Applicant was merely suspended, not removed. The court nonetheless granted certiorari and prohibition, holding the decision to oust the Applicant illegal, null and void for want of jurisdiction, and prohibited the Interested Party from assuming the office.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself
- A decision-maker acting without jurisdiction renders the decision illegal, null and void, and it is unnecessary to inquire into the other review grounds
Court orders
#- 1.An order of certiorari to remove and quash the decision of the 1st Respondent contained in the letter dated 21st July 2020 for being manifestly illegal, null and void
- 2.An order of prohibition directed against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents from allowing the Interested Party to assume the duties of Branch Executive Secretary of the 3rd Respondent
- 3.Costs of the suit to be paid by the 1st and 2nd Respondents jointly and severally to the Ex Parte Applicant and the 3rd Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction over the decision of the 1st Respondent contained in the letter dated 21st July 2020 suspending the Ex Parte Applicant as Executive Secretary of KNUT Meru Central Branch
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Wilson Sossion Secretary General Knut & 2 others; Valentino Muriunga (Interested Party) Ex Parte Caxton Miungi [2020] KEELRC 38 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 24th August 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/38/eng@2020-11-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.