Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedJudicial Review No E023 of 2021· [2021] KEELRC 99 (KLR)

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)

High Court of Kenya
20 December 2021
3,041 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

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

#
The Ex Parte Applicant, appointed a member of the Agricultural Development Corporation's Board by Gazette Notice No. 1 of 4th January 2021 for a three-year term, sought judicial review after the 1st Respondent, the Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture, revoked his appointment by Gazette Notice No. 8030 of 11th August 2021. He sought declarations that the revocation was ultra vires Section 5(1)(b) of the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, violated Articles 27, 41 and 47 of the Constitution, an order of certiorari to quash the decision, damages and costs. He argued the Minister lacked power to revoke, that no notice or hearing was given, and that he had a legitimate expectation to serve his term. The Respondents and 1st Interested Party countered that the revocation followed an EACC advisory that the Applicant was ineligible for board appointments under Section 6(3) of the State Corporations Act, having previously been removed from the Tourism Finance Corporation's board; that certiorari was unavailable as the claim was contractual; and that the board had since been reconstitited. The 2nd Interested Party sought its removal from the suit. The Court held the revocation was made pursuant to the 1st Respondent's statutory mandate, that certiorari cannot issue contra statute given the Applicant's statutory ineligibility, and that the public's legitimate expectation was that appointments follow the law. The application was dismissed with costs on 20th December 2021, the judgment being delivered by Nzioki Wa Makau J at Nairobi.

Key legal issues

#
01

Statutory power to revoke appointment

Holding

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

Reasoning

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.

p. 2
02

Availability of certiorari

Holding

Certiorari was refused because the statutory bar on the Applicant's eligibility could not be reversed by the prerogative order

Reasoning

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.

p. 4
03

Legitimate expectation and constitutional violations

Holding

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

Reasoning

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.

p. 4

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. 1.The Judicial Review application is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Agricultural Development Corporation Act, Cap 444Section 5(1)(b); Section 6(3); Section 6(3)(c)
  • State Corporations ActSection 7; Section 6(3); Section 2(e)
  • Employment Act 2007Section 47
  • Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015Section 11(1)(j)
  • Interpretation and General Provisions ActNot specified
  • Leadership and Integrity ActNot specified
  • Mwongozo: The Code of Conduct for State CorporationsNot specified
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 10(2)
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Articles 27, 41, 47, 22(1), Chapter 6

Cases cited (12)

  • Republic v Commissioner General, Kenya Revenue Authority Ex parte Sanofi Aventis Kenya Limited
    [2019] eKLR
  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others
    [2008] 2 EA 300
  • Republic v Land Registrar Kajiado North District & 6 Others Ex-Parte Irene Naipanoi Montet
    [2014] eKLR
  • Republic v Attorney General & Another Ex Parte Waswa & 2 Others
    [2005] 1 KLR 280
  • Republic v Principal Secretary Ministry of Mining Ex-parte Airbus Helicopters Southern Africa (PTY) Ltd
    [2017] eKLR
  • John Waweru Wanjohi & 2 Others v Attorney General & 3 Others
    [2012] eKLR
  • Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Alphonse Mwangemi Munga & 10 Others v African Safari Club Limited
    [2008] eKLR
  • Republic v Mwangi S. Kaimenyi ex parte KIPPRA
    [2013] eKLR
  • Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority & Another Ex-Parte Bear Africa (K) Limited
    [2013] eKLR
  • Republic v Commissioner of Customs Services ex-parte Africa K-Link International Limited
    [2012] eKLR
  • Meme v Republic
    [2004] 1 EA 124
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.