[2020] KEELRC 1488 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 1488 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimant did not meet the statutory qualifications required for appointment as Chairman of the Standards Tribunal under section 16A(3) of the Standards Act, as he was neither an advocate of at least seven years standing nor a former judge of the High Court. Consequently, his appointment was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 1488 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Albert Mwilitsa; Respondent: The Hon Attorney General
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 401 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Statutory Qualifications, Public Appointments, Legitimate Expectation, Removal From Office
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Statutory Qualifications Public Appointments Legitimate Expectation Removal From Office

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert Mwilitsa

Claimant

The Hon Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the revocation of the Claimant's appointment as Chairman of the Standards Tribunal was unlawful or unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant met the statutory qualifications for appointment as Chairman under section 16A(3) of the Standards Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was entitled to legitimate expectation of benefits attached to the office.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant did not meet the statutory qualifications required for appointment as Chairman of the Standards Tribunal under section 16A(3) of the Standards Act, as he was neither an advocate of at least seven years standing nor a former judge of the High Court. Consequently, his appointment was void ab initio. The court held that the Claimant could not validly qualify to hold the position or have a legitimate expectation to the benefits of the office. The revocation of his appointment was therefore lawful, and there was no breach of his fundamental rights or freedoms. The claim was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The Memorandum of Claim filed on 17 March 2015 is dismissed.
  • The Respondent is awarded costs.