Paul Karungo Thang’wa v Speaker, Kiambu County Assembly & 2 others [2022] [2022] KEELRC 964 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a county official removed through the proper legal steps can't claim unfair treatment after choosing not to participate in the process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Assembly's 29th October 2019 resolution amounted to removal before investigation
It did not; the vote merely established the requisite one-third support for the motion
Section 40(2) requires a motion to be supported by at least one-third of Members before a select committee is appointed under Section 40(3). The 29th October vote was an exercise in establishing such support, not a final removal decision. The statutory sequence is motion endorsement, select committee investigation, findings, and a final Assembly vote before the Governor acts.
Whether composition of the select committee with supporters of the motion violated fair hearing rights
No bar exists in Section 40(3) against supporters of the motion sitting on the select committee
The statute requires the Assembly to appoint a select committee comprising five of its members without disqualifying those who voted in support. Even unanimous support for a motion would not obviate the need for a committee. The Petitioner was invited, given the motion as the statement of charges, and chose to walk out.
Whether the Respondents were in contempt of the conservatory orders issued on 7th November 2019
No finding of contempt could be made through the Petition; the contempt application was withdrawn and never tried
The Petitioner's application dated 18th November 2019 seeking contempt findings was withdrawn on 27th August 2020 with no order as to costs. The conservatory orders application was never heard inter partes. The Assembly process was legally time-bound and the Assembly was operating within the constitutional scheme of devolution, consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance in the Wambora case.
Whether the Petitioner was denied fair hearing and fair administrative action
He was not; he was invited to be heard, declined, and walked out of the process
The Petitioner was supplied the motion containing the grounds, invited before the select committee on 4th November 2019 and before the full Assembly on 19th November 2019, but declined to take up the opportunities. Strict statutory timelines under Section 40 left no room for adjournments. He misunderstood the sequence of Section 40.
Legal principles established
#- A motion endorsed by at least one-third of County Assembly members under Section 40(2) is not a final removal decision; investigation by a select committee and a final Assembly vote must precede the Governor's dismissal
- Section 40(3) of the County Governments Act does not bar members who supported a removal motion from serving on the select committee
- A person who walks out of an administrative process cannot later claim denial of fair hearing
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is declined.
- 2.No order on the costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya 2010; Fair Administrative Action Act; County Governments Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Paul Karungo Thang’wa v Speaker, Kiambu County Assembly & 2 others [2022] [2022] KEELRC 964 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Petition No 208 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/964/eng@2022-01-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.