Miriti v Governor, Meru County & another (Petition E002 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2564 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a Meru Governor illegally revoked a county board CEO's appointment by letter instead of following constitutional removal procedures.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petition met the Anarita Karimi Njeru competence threshold
The petition met the threshold as it pleaded the provisions infringed and the manner of infringement
The court found the petitioner clearly outlined her complaint, the constitutional and statutory provisions infringed, and the manner of infringement, satisfying the precision required by Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic.
Whether the Secretary/CEO is a substantive member or ex officio member of the Board
Substantive member under section 58(1)(c) of the County Governments Act
Section 58(1)(c) includes the certified public secretary among those constituting the Board; had the legislature intended an ex officio status it would have said so expressly. The court noted its earlier 2018 decision in Shukuri Alawo Mohamed and Nduma J's approval of it in John Saul Nariara.
Whether the Governor's revocation of the appointment was lawful
The revocation was ultra vires, premature and unconstitutional as it bypassed the mandatory removal procedure under Article 251 and section 58(5)
The petitioner, as a substantive Board member, enjoys security of tenure; removal requires the grounds in Article 251(1) and a 75% vote of the county assembly. A mere letter of revocation by the Governor, even on grounds of disqualification under section 58(3)(b), could not dispense with that mandatory procedure; her right to fair administrative action under Articles 47 and 236 was violated.
Whether the petitioner was discriminated against regarding leave of absence
Claim of discrimination not proved
The court found no legal or regulatory framework entitling county public officers to leave of absence, and no evidence that the Chief Officers and CEC member sought leave in the same manner; therefore no differential treatment contrary to Article 27 was established.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to damages for constitutional violations
Yes - Kshs. 3,000,000 awarded for violation of Articles 28, 29, 41, 47 and 236
The revocation without due process constituted cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and violated fair labour practices and fair administrative action. Guided by awards in Esther W. Keige (Kshs. 2,000,000) and Mundia Njeru Gateria (Kshs. 5,000,000), the court fixed Kshs. 3,000,000 as reasonable compensation for a Secretary/CEO.
Legal principles established
#- The Secretary/CEO of a County Public Service Board is a substantive member of the Board under section 58(1)(c) of the County Governments Act, not an ex officio member
- A member of a County Public Service Board, including the Secretary/CEO, enjoys security of tenure and can only be removed under section 58(5) of the County Governments Act read with Article 251 of the Constitution
- County public servants are not, as the law stands, entitled to leave of absence upon contractual appointments absent an HR policy or CHRAC recommendation and Board approval
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the petitioner is and has been duly appointed as Secretary/CEO under section 58(1)(c) County Governments Act and can only be removed under section 58(5) read with Article 251 of the Constitution
- 2.Declaration that the petitioner's appointment as Secretary/CEO was done procedurally and in accordance with the law
- 3.Declaration that a Member of the County Public Service Board (including the Secretary) can only be removed under section 58(5) read with Article 251 of the Constitution
- 4.Declaration that the revocation by letter dated 8th March 2024 was illegal, irregular, un-procedural, unlawful, arbitrary, capricious and violated Articles 28, 29, 41(1), 47 and 236 of the Constitution and sections 58(4), 58(5) & 59A of the County Governments Act, section 5 of the Fair Administrative Action Act and sections 35 and 45 of the Employment Act
- 5.Order of certiorari quashing the decision revoking the petitioner's appointment contained in the letter dated 8th March 2024
- 6.Permanent injunction restraining the 1st respondent from unlawfully revoking the appointment of or interfering with the petitioner's employment contract as Secretary/CEO
- 7.Award of Kshs. 3,000,000 damages against the 1st respondent for constitutional violations
- 8.Costs of and incidental to the petition to the petitioner
- 9.Interest on damages and costs at court rates from the date of judgment
- 10.Declaration that the petitioner has the option of resigning from either job in order to be compliant with the law
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 41, 47 and 236 of the Constitution; Fair Administrative Action Act; Employment Act (original jurisdiction of the ELRC)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Miriti v Governor, Meru County & another (Petition E002 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2564 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2564/eng@2024-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.