Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedPetition (transferred from Siaya High Court; number not stated in judgment)· [2021] KEELRC 2257 (KLR)

Dorothy Owino v County Assembly of Siaya & 2 others [2021] KEELRC 2257 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 January 2021
2,631 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court threw out Siaya County's attempt to dismiss its Health CEC because the Assembly ignored its own procedural rules before voting.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, the County Executive Committee Member for Health Services in Siaya County, petitioned after the County Assembly resolved to recommend her dismissal on grounds of gross misconduct, incompetence, abuse of office and constitutional violations. The matter was originally filed in the High Court at Siaya, which on 20 November 2019 declined jurisdiction and transferred it to the Employment and Labour Relations Court, Kisumu. Before this Court, the parties framed issues on jurisdiction, the lawfulness of the removal process, infringement of rights and costs. The Court declined to revisit the High Court's jurisdictional ruling, noting an appeal was the proper avenue, but observed obiter Court of Appeal authority treating the county executive committee member relationship as employer-employee. On the merits, the Court declined to entertain the unpleaded ground of lack of public participation. It found that although three of five Ad Hoc Committee members had signed the removal motion, apparent bias was not decisive since the movers and proposers were excluded and the Petitioner appeared with counsel without objection. However, the Court held that County Assembly Standing Orders constitute binding legislation, endorsed the Zimbabwe Supreme Court's Biti decision, and found the Assembly breached Standing Orders 73 and 74 by failing to give the Petitioner the Ad Hoc Committee report at least three days before plenary debate and denying her an opportunity to appear before the plenary - a fundamental procedural misstep violating Article 47. The Court issued a declaration that the exclusion and the decision to recommend dismissal were procedurally unfair and null and void, but tailored the relief (deeming the order sought as drafted overbroad): the Assembly and Speaker were ordered to debate the Ad Hoc Committee report afresh in compliance with section 40(5) of the County Governments Act and the Standing Orders. Costs were awarded to the Petitioner on half-scale.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELRC over impeachment of a county executive committee member

Holding

The Court declined to revisit the High Court's jurisdictional ruling, since parties dissatisfied should have appealed, but noted Court of Appeal authority treating the relationship as employer-employee

Reasoning

The High Court had suo motu declined jurisdiction and transferred the Petition; the Notice of Preliminary Objection and submissions were already on record. The Court held it could not revisit the substance of that ruling, an appeal being the proper remedy, though it observed obiter Court of Appeal decisions supporting ELRC jurisdiction.

p. 3
02

Whether Standing Orders bind a County Assembly in removal proceedings

Holding

Yes - Standing Orders are legislation which must be obeyed, and the protections they assure are consistent with Articles 47 and 236 of the Constitution

Reasoning

Section 14 of the County Governments Act empowers the Assembly to enact Standing Orders consistent with constitutional values including fair administrative action and due process. Endorsing the Zimbabwe Supreme Court in Biti, the Court held Standing Orders cannot be dismissed as mere club rules and must be followed.

p. 4
03

Whether failure to give the Petitioner the report at least 3 days before plenary and opportunity to appear before the plenary violated her rights

Holding

Yes - the failure to comply with Standing Orders 73 and 74 rendered the process procedurally unfair and the decision recommending dismissal null and void

Reasoning

The allegations were properly pleaded in the supporting affidavit (paragraphs 11, 12 and 18). The Standing Orders conferred protections consistent with Articles 47 and 236. The Assembly's failure to comply was a fundamental procedural misstep.

p. 5
04

Whether the composition of the Ad Hoc Committee evidenced bias

Holding

No - apparent bias was not decisive; the movers and proposers of the motion were excluded and the Petitioner attended with counsel without objection

Reasoning

Although three signatories of the removal motion sat on the five-member Committee, the fair-minded observer test was applied; the movers/proposers were excluded and the Petitioner, accompanied by legal advisers, did not object to composition at the outset.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • County Assembly Standing Orders constitute legislation which must be obeyed and followed, and an assembly is bound to comply with protections they confer during removal proceedings
  • Failure to afford a county executive committee member the procedural protections in the Standing Orders before removal is a fundamental procedural error nullifying the process

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the exclusion of the Petitioner from the Assembly proceedings of 6 August 2019 and the 1st Respondent's decision to recommend her dismissal was procedurally unfair, violating Article 47 of the Constitution read with Standing Orders no. 73(9) and 74(1)(b) and (2), and is null and void
  2. 2.The County Assembly and the Speaker to cause the report of the Ad Hoc Committee to be debated afresh in compliance with section 40(5) of the County Governments Act as read with the Standing Orders
  3. 3.Costs of the Petition awarded to the Petitioner on half-scale

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • County Governments Actsections 14, 40, 40(3)(a), 40(4), 40(5), 40(6)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 27, 41, 47, 50, 236
  • Public Finance Management Actnot specified
  • Public Officers Ethics Actnot specified
  • Leadership and Integrity Actnot specified
  • Public Procurement and Asset Disposals Actnot specified
  • Standing Orders of the County Assembly of Siayasections 73, 73(2), 73(9), 73(10), 74(1)(b), 74(2)

Cases cited (6)

  • County Government of Garissa & another v Idriss Aden Mukhtar & 2 Ors
    (2020) eKLR
  • County Assembly of Kisumu & 2 Ors v Kisumu County Assembly Service Board & 6 Ors
    (2015) eKLR
  • Francis Maliti v County Assembly of Machakos & 2 Ors
    (2019) eKLR
  • Beatrice Wanjiru Kimani v Evanson Kimani Njoroge
    (1995-1998) 1 EA 134
  • Stephen M. Masamo & 4 Ors v County Assembly of Taita Taveta & 2 Ors
    (2017) eKLR
  • Tendai Laxton Biti and Ar v the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Another, Civil Application No 46 of 2002
Jurisdiction invoked
Original constitutional/jurisdictional mandate of the Employment and Labour Relations Court; Petition transferred from the High Court for want of jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Dorothy Owino v County Assembly of Siaya & 2 others [2021] KEELRC 2257 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Petition (transferred from Siaya High Court; number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2257/eng@2021-01-27

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