Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedJudicial Review Application dated 18th August, 2020 (Nyeri High Court)· [2021] KEELRC 1091 (KLR)

Republic v Public Service Commission, Ex-Parte; County Government of Laikipia; Laikipia County Public Service Board & another (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 1091 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
26 July 2021
DMD.K. Njagi Marete
3,152 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court dismissed the doctors' board challenge to the Public Service Commission, ruling it squandered its chance to participate in the appeal process.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a judicial review application by the Kenya Medical Practitioners Pharmacists and Dentists Board, a county public service body, challenging the conduct and decision of the Public Service Commission dated 12th August, 2020 on an appeal by the doctors' union (2nd Interested Party) on behalf of doctors summarily dismissed by the Applicant and the Laikipia County Public Service Board (1st Interested Party) after participating in a strike declared unlawful in Nyeri ELRC Cause No. 20 of 2019. The Applicant sought a declaration that the Commission conducted the appeal illegally, unfairly and with bias, an order of certiorari to quash the Commission's decision setting aside the dismissals and reinstating the doctors with remuneration, and an order of prohibition against its enforcement. The Applicant alleged pre-determination, failure to address communications to its advocates, ex parte recourse to conciliation, and conflict of interest because the Commission's Chairperson hails from Laikipia County. The Respondent and the 2nd Interested Party denied bias, showing that the Applicant consented to conciliation, withdrew from it, ignored notices to submit documents and submissions, and failed to prosecute its preliminary objection. The court framed three issues: bias, entitlement to relief, and costs. It found the appeal process free and fair, with all parties offered a genuine opportunity to participate, and held that the Applicant's own conduct excluded it from the process. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondent and the 2nd Interested Party.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Public Service Commission's appeal process was tainted by bias and unfairness

Holding

No bias or unfairness was established; the process was free and fair and all parties were afforded an opportunity to participate

Reasoning

The Respondent communicated with the Applicant at all stages through the addresses on its letterhead, invited the parties to conciliation by consent, and forwarded the 2nd Interested Party's submissions to the Applicant for response. The Applicant declined to comply with requests to file documents and submissions and withdrew from conciliation, lodging objections that were never formally pursued. The court found the process viable and fair and attributed the Applicant's exclusion from the process to her own conduct.

p. 5
02

Whether the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought

Holding

The Applicant is not entitled to the reliefs; the application was dismissed with costs

Reasoning

Having failed on the core bias and unfairness challenge, the certiorari and prohibition orders and the declaration sought could not issue. The court held that the Applicant became disentitled to relief by losing the case on the flawed-process claim, and awarded costs to the Respondent and the 2nd Interested Party.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who is offered and fails to take up opportunities to participate in an administrative process cannot later complain that the process was unfair or biased

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The judicial review application is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent and the 2nd Interested Party

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Public Service Commission ActSection 86
  • Public Service Commission (County Government Public Services Appeals Procedures) Regulations, 2016Regulations 9, 10, 11(1), 11(4), 16, 17, 18
  • County Government ActSection 59(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 252(1)(b)
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court over administrative action (judicial review application challenging the decision of the Public Service Commission of 12th August, 2020)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Public Service Commission, Ex-Parte; County Government of Laikipia; Laikipia County Public Service Board & another (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 1091 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Judicial Review Application dated 18th August, 2020 (Nyeri High Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1091/eng@2021-07-26

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.