Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition dated 28.07.2023 (Notice of Motion dated 28.07.2023)· [2023] KEELRC 3011 (KLR)

Langat v Kenya Revenue Authority (Petition E146 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 3011 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 November 2023
BOByram Ongaya
1,695 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed a KRA employee's bid to stop disciplinary action, confirming that suspension at half pay is mandatory once charged with an economic crime.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, an ICT employee of the Kenya Revenue Authority since December 2006, was interdicted by letter dated 15.03.2017 following information that he was among persons arrested as members of a hacking ring involved in multi-million-shilling KRA and bank theft. He moved the Court by notice of motion dated 28.07.2023 seeking interim orders restraining the respondent from terminating, harassing, intimidating or conducting disciplinary proceedings against him. He argued the interdiction was too general, had dragged on contravening Article 47 of the Constitution, the Employment Act, the Access to Information Act and the Fair Administrative Action Act, and that he had been discriminated against compared to colleagues (Lucy Katilo and Kenneth Riaga) who went through full disciplinary procedure. The respondent, through the replying affidavit of Peter Kambi Rwito, explained that internal and multi-agency investigations established losses of approximately four billion shillings through manipulation of taxpayer liabilities; the petitioner was charged on 29.11.2022 before the Milimani Courts with conspiracy to commit a felony contrary to section 393 of the Penal Code, and his interdiction was converted to suspension on 19.10.2023 under section 62(1) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003. The court held that the offence charged fell within the statutory definitions of corruption and economic crime, that the suspension was proceeding lawfully under section 62 with the 24-month period lapsing on or about 29.11.2024, and that no prima facie case was established. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause, with liberty to take steps for expeditious determination of the petition or consider compromise.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petitioner's suspension fell within section 62 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003

Holding

The offence charged (conspiracy to commit a felony involving dishonesty in connection with tax) constituted corruption/economic crime under section 2 of the Act, placing the suspension squarely under section 62

Reasoning

The court examined section 2 definitions of corruption and economic crime, which include offences involving dishonesty in connection with tax or protection of public revenue. The charge of conspiracy to steal over Ksh 3 billion from KRA satisfied those definitions. The petitioner was charged on 29.11.2022 and the 24-month window lapses around 29.11.2024, so the suspension is proceeding per the Act's provisions.

p. 4
02

Whether a prima facie case existed for interim injunctive relief

Holding

No prima facie case established; the interdiction preceding suspension did not displace section 62 as the lawful basis of the suspension

Reasoning

The court held that although the petitioner had first been interdicted, that prior situation did not remove the operation of section 62 under which the suspension was imposed. Whether other provisions of section 62 allow conclusion of the disciplinary process is a matter for full hearing of the petition, not the interim application.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A public officer charged with corruption or an economic crime must be suspended at half pay from the date of the charge until conclusion of the case, to be determined within 24 months, and such suspension proceeds per section 62 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application filed for the petitioner dated 28.07.2023 is dismissed with costs in the cause
  2. 2.Parties to take further steps for expeditious determination of the petition or may consider compromise in view of the findings in this ruling

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 47
  • Employment Act
  • Access to Information Act
  • Fair Administrative Action Act
  • Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003sections 2, 62, 62(1)
  • Penal Codesection 393
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the petitioner's employment dispute with the respondent

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Langat v Kenya Revenue Authority (Petition E146 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 3011 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Petition dated 28.07.2023 (Notice of Motion dated 28.07.2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3011/eng@2023-11-27

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