Akolo v Board of Directors, Amatsi Water Services Company Limited & 2 others; Attorney General (Interested Party) (Judicial Review E002 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2120 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that water company employees are not county public officers, so they can go straight to court without first appealing to the Public Service Commission.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Exparte Applicant was a county public officer subject to the exhaustion requirement under section 77 of the County Governments Act
He was not; the water company is a separate legal entity with autonomous disciplinary control over its staff
The employment letter identified Amatsi Water Services Company Ltd as employer; the Applicant was appointed, suspended and dismissed by the company's Board. Section 56(3) of the County Governments Act restricts 'county public officer' to an officer appointed by the county government. Applying Salomon v Salomon and the Court's earlier decision in Abdi v Governor, Kakamega County Government, the company is autonomous and separate from the County, so section 77 and the PSC appeals process do not apply. This was the ratio dispositive of the application.
Whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applied to the judicial review proceedings
It did not, because the Applicant was not a county public officer subject to the PSC appeals mechanism
The Applicants invoked the exhaustion doctrine, relying on Black's Law Dictionary and the IEBC v Shaileshkumarnata Verbai Patel decision upholding restriction of jurisdiction where an alternative remedy exists. However, since the Court found the Applicant was an employee of the corporate water company and not a county public officer, the mandatory appeal to the Public Service Commission under section 77 did not lie, and the exhaustion doctrine was inapplicable.
Legal principles established
#- Under section 56(3) of the County Governments Act, the designation of county public officer is restricted to an officer appointed by the county government; an employee appointed and disciplined by a water company registered under the Water Act is not a county public officer and is not subject to the PSC appeals process under section 77 of the County Governments Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 10th June 2024 is dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.Costs to the Ex parte Applicant in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Article 162(2) of the Constitution (judicial review proceedings before the ELRC); application brought under Article 50(1), 159(2)(d) and 234 of the Constitution, the Civil Procedure Act, the Public Service Commission Act and the Water Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Akolo v Board of Directors, Amatsi Water Services Company Limited & 2 others; Attorney General (Interested Party) (Judicial Review E002 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2120 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review proceedings; Notice of Motion dated 10th June 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2120/eng@2024-07-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.