Cosmas & 2 others v Natembeya, Governor, Trans Nzoia County & 2 others (Constitutional Petition E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1996 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court quashed a Governor's executive order that sidelined three county ministers, ruling they had to be given notice, a hearing and written reasons first.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Particularity and precision of constitutional petitions
The petition met the Anarita Karimi threshold under Rule 10 of the Mutunga Rules as it disclosed the facts, the constitutional provisions violated, the injury and the relief sought.
The Respondents argued the petition merely cited Articles 41, 47, 50 and 159 without elaboration. The court applied Rule 10(2) of the Mutunga Rules and found the petition disclosed the facts relied upon, the constitutional provisions violated, the nature of injury and the reliefs sought, satisfying the Anarita Karimi standard.
Whether the Executive Order No. 1 of 2025 constructively dismissed the Petitioners in violation of their rights
The Executive Order and internal memo constructively dismissed the Petitioners, violating their rights to fair labour practices, fair administrative action and a fair hearing.
The annexures (WhatsApp removal, letters on denial of access to offices) proved the Petitioners were denied their portfolios and access to offices. The Respondents' claim of absconding was unsupported by any show-cause letters or evidence, and no evidence showed re-assignment of the Petitioners to other departments. Removal without prior notice, hearing or written reasons breached Article 47 and section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Entitlement to reliefs including general damages
Declaration and certiorari granted, but general damages refused because no loss was proved; the Petitioners were instead entitled to remuneration and allowances for the period out of office.
Guided by the Peter Ndegwa Kiai case and comparative jurisprudence limiting constitutional damages to proven losses, the court found the Petitioners had not proved loss. It placed them in the financial position they would have occupied had their services not been terminated, rather than awarding general damages.
Legal principles established
#- A governor may not constructively dismiss a CECM through an executive order and internal memo without the fair administrative action process (notice, hearing and written reasons) required under Article 47 and section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
- A constitutional petition that discloses the facts relied upon, the constitutional provisions violated and how they were breached satisfies the Anarita Karimi precision threshold.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Respondents violated the Petitioners' constitutional rights to fair administrative action under Article 47 and that the Executive Order by the 1st Respondent and the internal memo by the 2nd Respondent dated 15/1/2025 violate Articles 10, 41, 47, 50 and 159 of the Constitution
- 2.A Judicial Review Order of Certiorari quashing the Executive Order No. 1 of 2025 dated 10/1/2025 together with the internal memo of the 2nd Respondent dated 15/1/2025
- 3.The Petitioners awarded costs of the Petition with interest at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 4.Petitioners entitled to all their remuneration and allowances during the period they were kept out of office
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 1, 2, 10, 22, 23, 40, 47, 50, 73, 159, 162(2) and 165 of the Constitution; Fair Administrative Action Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cosmas & 2 others v Natembeya, Governor, Trans Nzoia County & 2 others (Constitutional Petition E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1996 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1996/eng@2025-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.