Republic v Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries & Co-operatives & another; State Corporations Advisory Committee (SCAC) & another Ex parte; Stephen Ndichu Kinuthia [2021] KEELRC 99 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a board member's challenge to his revocation, holding that the Cabinet Secretary acted lawfully under the State Corporations Act.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Statutory power to revoke appointment
The revocation was lawful, being pursuant to the 1st Respondent's statutory mandate following an EACC advisory that the Applicant was ineligible under Section 6(3) of the State Corporations Act
The 1st Respondent deponed that following an advisory from the EACC dated 19th July 2021, the Applicant, whose earlier appointment at the Tourism Finance Corporation had been revoked under Section 2(e) of the State Corporations Act, was ineligible for appointment to any board under Section 6(3). The Court accepted that the revocation was made in the Respondent's official capacity and within the law, in furtherance of Chapter Six of the Constitution and the Leadership and Integrity Act.
Availability of certiorari
Certiorari was refused because the statutory bar on the Applicant's eligibility could not be reversed by the prerogative order
The Court read Section 6(3) of the State Corporations Act as rendering the Applicant ineligible for appointment to any other board following the revocation of his prior appointment. Because the ineligibility rests on statute, quashing the Gazette Notice would achieve nothing and certiorari cannot run contra statute. The Applicant's legitimate expectation claim could not overcome this statutory position.
Legitimate expectation and constitutional violations
The Applicant's challenge on legitimate expectation and alleged violations of Articles 27, 41 and 47 failed; the lawful revocation aligned with the public's legitimate expectation that appointments follow the law
The Court held that the Applicant was misguided in invoking legitimate expectation, since the people of Kenya themselves hold a legitimate expectation that State Corporations comply with the law in their appointments. The revocation, founded on the EACC advisory and Chapter Six integrity requirements, was in keeping with those expectations, so no constitutional violation of fair labour practice, fair administrative action or equality was made out.
Legal principles established
#- An order of certiorari cannot issue against a statutory bar; where a statute renders a person ineligible for appointment, the court will not quash a revocation effected pursuant to that statute
- The public has a legitimate expectation that State Corporations will follow the law in appointments, and revocation in keeping with the law satisfies that expectation
Court orders
#- 1.The Judicial Review application is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, following leave granted by the Court on 18th August 2021 (constitutional provisions invoked include Articles 41, 47 and 27 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries & Co-operatives & another; State Corporations Advisory Committee (SCAC) & another Ex parte; Stephen Ndichu Kinuthia [2021] KEELRC 99 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Judicial Review No E023 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/99/eng@2021-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.