Emmanuel Wanjala Wamalwa v Robert Pavel Oimeke & 5 others [2020] KEELRC 419 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a petition challenging EPRA Director-General Robert Pavel Oimeke's reappointment, ruling he was qualified and no misconduct was proven.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Respondent meets the qualifications under Section 13(3) of the Energy Act, 2019, in particular membership of a relevant professional association in good standing
The 1st Respondent is qualified; he holds a relevant degree, is a registered Graduate Engineer with the Engineers Board of Kenya in good standing, and is a member of other professional bodies.
Section 13(3) of the Energy Act sets out the qualifications for appointment as Director-General, including being a member in good standing of a relevant professional association. The 1st Respondent exhibited his degree certificate, registration as a Graduate Engineer with the Engineers Board of Kenya (No. B8389) with a certificate of good standing, membership of the Association of Energy Professionals Eastern Africa and the Institute of Directors (Kenya). The court accepted this documentary proof as displacing the Petitioner's assertion.
Whether the 1st Respondent committed acts or omissions disqualifying him from office (abuse of office, corruption, tribalism, favouritism)
No disqualifying acts or omissions were established; the Petitioner's evidence was uncertified, of undisclosed source, and failed to prove the allegations.
The Petitioner relied on documents, including a letter seeking withdrawal of charges against an LPG dealer, whose source was not disclosed and which were not certified. Applying the Court of Appeal's ruling in the Omtata case and the Supreme Court's decision in Njonjo Mue, the court held irregularly obtained evidence inadmissible where its admission would be detrimental to the administration of justice. The allegations of nepotism, tribalism and misappropriation were likewise not proved, and the EACC confirmed no complaint had been lodged with it.
Whether the Petition was overtaken by events given the 1st Respondent's prior reappointment
The reappointment had been considered, concluded and accepted before the Petition was filed, so the orders sought could not be sustained.
The 1st Respondent applied for reappointment in January 2020; the Board considered and approved it in March 2020; the Cabinet Secretary approved on 7/5/2020; and he accepted in writing on 11/5/2020. Since the Petition was filed on 22/7/2020, the relief seeking to restrain deliberation and renewal was moot. The interim injunction granted earlier could not stand and was lifted.
Legal principles established
#- Evidence obtained in a manner violating rights in the Bill of Rights may be excluded under Article 50(4) if its admission would be detrimental to the administration of justice, whether in civil or criminal proceedings.
Court orders
#- 1.The order granted on 28/7/2020 injuncting the Respondents from considering, reappointing and renewing the contract of the 1st Respondent is lifted
- 2.The Petition is dismissed in its entirety
- 3.The status quo of the 1st Respondent reinstated immediately as Director General of the 2nd Respondent
- 4.No order of costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 165 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Emmanuel Wanjala Wamalwa v Robert Pavel Oimeke & 5 others [2020] KEELRC 419 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Petition No. 114 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/419/eng@2020-10-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.