Charles Oyoo Kanyangi & 43 others v Judicial Service Commission [2020] KEELRC 884 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed 40 former magistrates' constitutional challenge to their 2004 retirements, mainly because they waited 13 years and pleaded their case too vaguely.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Undue laches
The 14-year delay was inordinate and unexplained; the claim that the Respondent should have supplied the Ringera Report was rejected
The Petitioners retired on 12th March 2004 and filed in 2017 without explanation. As advocates, they knew or ought to have known the consequences of delay. The Respondent could not know they intended to rely on the report; they could have requested it or sought court orders to compel its release.
Precision in constitutional petitions
The petition failed the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold as it did not specify the constitutional provisions violated or the manner of violation
Apart from citing Sections 70(a) and 74(1), the Petitioners did not outline the specific infringements. The Court cannot decipher violations from the prayers; the violated provisions and manner of violation must be pleaded in the body of the petition.
Compliance with Regulation 28 of the Judicial Service Regulations
The Respondent complied with Regulation 28; show cause letters specified allegations with specificity and each petitioner responded in detail
Each notice to show cause specified the allegations and each petitioner responded in detail. None requested further particulars or evidence. Regulation 28(1) required notification of complaints and the substance of any detrimental report, which was done.
Alleged violation of Sections 70(a) and 74(1)
Not proved; citing constitutional sections without specifying the acts constituting breach is insufficient
The Petitioners pleaded humiliation, mental torture and disgrace but none of these averments were demonstrated by evidence. No details of acts constituting the breaches were given.
Wrongful joinder of certain petitioners
The 15th, 20th, 23rd, 32nd and 40th Petitioners were not retired pursuant to the Ringera Report and were wrongly joined
The Respondent showed these petitioners were retired for other reasons, before the report's release or without public interest letters; these averments were not contested.
Legal principles established
#- A constitutional petition must set out with reasonable precision the provisions said to be infringed and the manner of infringement, failing which it fails the threshold
- Delay in filing a constitutional petition must not be inordinate and must be plausibly explained; written submissions cannot substitute for proven facts explaining delay
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed.
- 2.Each party shall bear their own costs.
- On appeal from
- null
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction under Sections 70(a) and 74(1) of the former Constitution, matter transferred to this Court by ruling of Mwita J. of 15th August 2018
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charles Oyoo Kanyangi & 43 others v Judicial Service Commission [2020] KEELRC 884 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Petition No 81 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/884/eng@2020-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.