https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1635

Changorok v County Assembly of West Pokot & 2 others (Petition E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1635 (KLR) (12 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1635 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kitale Petition E003 of 2025 MA Onyango, J June 12, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 ARTICLE NO. 2(1),3(1),10,19,20,21,22,23,27(1),41(1),47,50(1),162(2) AND 236 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT ACT. NO. 17 OF 2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COUNTY SERVICES ACT NO, 24 OF 2017, SECTION 10,12 AND 46 AND IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS (COUNTY ASSEMBLIES APPROVAL) ACT, SECTIONS 6,7,3,9 AND 11 AND IN THE MATTER OF FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ACT 2015 SECTION 14 AND IN THE MATTER OF WEST POKOT COUNTY ASSEMBLY STANDING ORDERS NO. 62(A)(1), 2,3,4,5,6,(7),8, 63(1)(a)(b)(2) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYS,2010, THE COUNTY ASSEMBLY SERVICES ACT, THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ACT, THE WEST POKOT COUNTY ASSEMBLIES STANDING ORDERS AND THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE Between Regina Changorok Petitioner and County Assembly of West Pokot 1st Respondent Speaker of the County Assembly of West Pokot 2nd Respondent and County Government of West Pokot Interested Party Judgment Introduction 1.At all material times relevant to this Petition, the Petitioner was serving as a member of the West Pokot County Assembly Service Board having been appointed on 13th June 2023. 2.The 1st Respondent is the County Assembly of West Pokot, established under Article 176 of the Constitution. 3.The 2nd Respondent is the Speaker of the 1st Respondent elected under Article 178 of the Constitution. 4.The 3rd Respondent is established under Article 176 of the Constitution. 5.In the Petition dated 16th May 2025, the Petitioner alleges that the Respondents breached various Articles of the Constitution, section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act and Standing Orders of West Pokot County Assembly in impeaching her. She seeks the following reliefs:a.A declaration that the impeachment of the Petitioner as a member of the West Pokot County Assembly Service Board on 15th May 2025 was unconstitutional and illegal.b.An order of Judicial review in the manner of certiorari do issue forthwith to bring into this Hon. Court the Respondents decision of 15th May 2025 and which impeached the petitioner as a member of the West Pokot County Assembly Service Board, for the same to be quashed by the Hon. Court.c.A conservatory order be issued staying the gazettement of the Petitioner's impeachment as a member of the West Pokot County Assembly Service Board, and also staying the removal of the Petitioner from the pay roll, while pending the hearing and determination of the petition herein and the petitioner to remain in Office.d.Any other relief that this Hon Court may deem fit to grante.Costsf.Interests 6.The Petition is supported by the affidavit of Regina Changorok, the Petitioner herein. 7.The Respondents opposed the Petition vide a Replying Affidavit sworn by the 2nd Respondent, Hon. Kaptui Fredrick Plimo on 19th June 2025. The Petitioner’s Case 8.The Petitioner avers that vide a letter dated 12th May 2025 from the Acting Clerk of the West Pokot County Assembly, which she received at about 4.55 p.m., she was informed that a petition seeking her removal as a member of the County Assembly Service Board had been received by the County Assembly on 6th May 2025. She contends that the said letter further informed her that the petition had been committed to an Ad Hoc Committee established to investigate allegations of conflict of interest and gross misconduct levelled against her and thereafter prepare and submit a report to the County Assembly within twenty-one days. 9.The Petitioner further avers that she was informed that the County Assembly would, within seven days of the tabling of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee, consider the report and vote on the resolution seeking her removal. She further states that she was informed of her right to appear and to be represented before the Ad Hoc Committee during the investigations. She further states that she was notified that the Ad Hoc Committee would sit on 13th May 2025 at 10.00 a.m. at the County Assembly precincts. 10.According to the Petitioner, the time accorded to her to prepare her defence was inadequate and insufficient to enable her understand the allegations levelled against her, obtain relevant documentation and properly instruct counsel before the scheduled hearing. 11.It is the Petitioner’s case that on the morning of 13th May 2025, she wrote to the Clerk of the County Assembly protesting the short notice and requesting for more time to prepare her defence. She avers that she further pointed out that the affidavit referred to in the petition had not been supplied to her. 12.The Petitioner contends that she instructed an advocate based in Nairobi to write to the Clerk requesting for additional time and adjournment of the proceedings and that, upon realizing that counsel based in Nairobi would not readily assist her within the limited timelines, she travelled to Kitale in search of legal representation. She states that she subsequently managed to secure counsel who, however, was engaged in another court matter and only became available at about 1.30 p.m. 13.The Petitioner states that at about 1.39 p.m., the Clerk to the County Assembly forwarded to her through WhatsApp the affidavit filed in support of the petition. She further states that together with the affidavit, the Clerk intimated that the video clip referred to in the petition and which she had requested for would subsequently be supplied to her, but the same was never forwarded. The Petitioner additionally avers that the communication sent through WhatsApp indicated that the proceedings before the Ad Hoc Committee would proceed at 3.30 p.m. without fail. 14.The Petitioner avers that in the circumstances, it was not possible for either herself or her counsel to appear before the Committee at 3.30 p.m. as counsel had not had adequate opportunity to appreciate the brief and prepare a proper response. 15.The Petitioner further contends that as a consequence, the firm of M/s Kiarie & Company Advocates addressed a letter to the Clerk of the County Assembly explaining the inability of both the Petitioner and counsel to attend the scheduled hearing and requesting for more time. It is averred that the said letter was allegedly forwarded through both email and WhatsApp, but no response was received from the Clerk. 16.It is the Petitioner’s case that notwithstanding the fact that the Ad Hoc Committee had twenty-one days within which to investigate the allegations and prepare its report, the Committee proceeded in her absence and completed the process without according her an effective opportunity to be heard. 17.According to the Petitioner, members of the County Assembly were thereafter invited to a special sitting scheduled for 15th May 2025 at 10.00 a.m., during which the report of the Ad Hoc Committee recommending her impeachment was tabled and adopted through a vote of the Assembly. 18.It is the Petitioner’s case that she was never furnished with the report, findings or recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee and was equally not invited to defend herself before the County Assembly prior to the debate and adoption of the motion for her removal. 19.The Petitioner therefore contends that the entire impeachment process was concluded within a record four days and in blatant violation of her constitutional right to a fair hearing and fair administrative action. The Respondents’ case 20.The Respondents in opposition to the Petition averred in the Replying Affidavit dated 19th June 2025 that the Petitioner’s appointment as a member of the West Pokot County Assembly Service Board on 13th June 2023 was subject to the terms and conditions contained in her letter of appointment. 21.According to the Respondents, the appointment was on a part-time basis pursuant to section 47 of the County Assembly Service Act and was subject to approval by the County Assembly and the taking of the oath of office. 22.The Respondents further aver that the relationship between the Petitioner and the County Assembly Service Board was unique in nature and not limited to an ordinary employer-employee relationship. 23.The Respondents state that as a member of the County Assembly Service Board, the Petitioner had taken an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of Kenya. 24.It is further averred that the Petitioner was expected to uphold and advance the values and principles set out under section 5 of the County Assembly Service Act. 25.The Respondents further contend that the Petitioner was equally bound by section 6(2) of the County Assembly Service Act to conduct herself with integrity, diligence and respect towards all persons and to protect vulnerable groups against abuse, harassment and ill-treatment. 26.According to the Respondents, the Petitioner failed to uphold the principles and values espoused under Chapter Six of the Constitution by making public statements during a political meeting which was discriminatory against women who had not undergone female genital mutilation (FGM). On this basis, the Respondents averred that on 5th May 2025, the Office of the County Assembly received a petition seeking the removal of the Petitioner from office and subsequently forwarded the same to the 2nd Respondent for consideration. 27.The Respondents state that owing to the seriousness of the allegations and the implications of the matter, the 2nd Respondent presented the petition before the County Assembly on 6th May 2025 at about 2.30 p.m., where the Assembly resolved to constitute an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate the allegations against the Petitioner for breaching Articles 75 and 232 of the Constitution. 28.The Respondents contends that at about 3.30 p.m., the Committee noted that attempts had been made through the Sergeant-at-Arms to serve the Petitioner with the invitation letter and that although the Petitioner received a telephone call from the officer, she declined to receive the letter. That the Committee thereafter proceeded to prepare its report which was subsequently forwarded to the 2nd Respondent on 14th May 2025 for onward transmission to the County Assembly for deliberation. 29.The Respondents further aver that a special sitting of the County Assembly was convened on 15th May 2025 at 10.00 a.m. and attended by thirty-three members of the Assembly. 30.The Respondents state that the report of the Ad Hoc Committee was tabled before the Assembly and adopted through a vote of the members present. 31.It is further averred that the members present signed both the attendance register and the voting division list. 32.The Respondents contend that the Assembly unanimously resolved to remove the Petitioner as a member of the County Assembly Service Board and thereafter mandated the 2nd Respondent to gazette the removal pursuant to Standing Order No. 26 of the West Pokot County Assembly Standing Orders. According to the Respondents, the Petitioner’s removal was subsequently gazetted through Gazette Notice No. 6425 dated 15th May 2025. 33.The Respondents further aver that following her removal from office, the Petitioner ceased to be entitled to the rights and privileges attached to membership of the County Assembly Service Board. They further contend that appointments to the Board are political in nature and the Petitioner’s appointment was part-time pursuant to section 12(3A) of the County Government Act. 34.According to the Respondents, the procedure set out under section 10 of the County Assembly Service Act regarding removal from office was fully complied with. 35.It is the Respondent’s position that the Petitioner was involved in a conflict of interest contrary to section 46 of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act by declaring interest in vying for the position of Woman Representative while still serving as a member of the County Assembly Service Board, thereby compromising her impartiality. 36.The Respondents state that the Ad Hoc Committee was formally constituted by the County Assembly on 7th May 2025 at about 9.30 a.m. and that the Committee held its first meeting on 12th May 2025 under the chairmanship of Hon. Emmanuel Akasile. 37.According to the Respondents, the Committee directed the Clerk to invite the Petitioner to appear before it on 13th May 2025 at 10.00 a.m. The Respondents further state that instead of attending the proceedings, the Petitioner instructed M/s George Kalice & Co. Advocates to write to the Clerk acknowledging receipt of the notice but requesting for another hearing date. The Respondents further aver that the Petitioner also instructed M/s Kiarie & Co. Advocates who addressed another letter to the Clerk indicating that the Petitioner was at counsel’s office in Kitale and requesting for more time up to 16th May 2025. 38.The Respondents state that during the scheduled sitting, the Clerk confirmed that the Petitioner had been duly served with the invitation and the allegations against her and that she had responded through correspondence from her advocates. 39.It is further the Respondents’ case that the Committee noted that the Petitioner had circulated the invitation and allegations against her on social media thereby occasioning threats, intimidation and attempts to influence the Committee’s deliberations. 40.According to the Respondents, owing to the said developments, the Committee deemed it necessary to issue a further invitation requiring the Petitioner to attend the proceedings scheduled for 3.30 p.m. on the same day. 41.The Respondents maintain that despite being accorded an opportunity to appear before the Committee, the Petitioner failed to attend the proceedings and consequently the Committee proceeded to deliberate upon and prepare its report. 42.The Respondents therefore contend that the Petition lacks any legal, constitutional or statutory basis and does not meet the threshold for the grant of the orders sought. 43.In the end, the Respondents urge the Court to find the Petition devoid of merit and dismiss the same with costs. The Petitioners’ Response 44.In a rejoinder, the Petitioner filed a Further Supporting Affidavit dated 30th June 2025 and contended that she was duly appointed as a member of the West Pokot County Assembly Service Board and consequently became a State officer subject to the constitutional and statutory provisions governing State officers. 45.The Petitioner denied the allegations that she violated the values and principles set out under sections 5 and 6(2) of the County Assembly Service Act and maintained that throughout her tenure, she conducted herself in accordance with the law and the constitutional principles applicable to public officers. She also denied the Respondents’ allegation that she circulated the invitation to appear before the Ad Hoc Committee and the allegations levelled against her through social media platforms. 46.The Petitioner asserted that the documents supplied to her together with the invitation did not include the supporting affidavit or the video clip referred to in the petition seeking her impeachment. 47.The Petitioner contended that the report of the Ad Hoc Committee was forwarded to the Speaker on 14th May 2025 and that the decision regarding her impeachment and removal from office had already been made prior to the commencement and conclusion of the hearing before the Ad Hoc Committee. 48.In this regard, the Petitioner argued that the notice of her impeachment to the Government Printer for purposes of gazettement was made on 13th May 2025, well before the Ad Hoc Committee’s report was allegedly forwarded to the Speaker on 14th May 2025. This, according to the Petitioner demonstrates that the Speaker already knew and anticipated the outcome of the Ad Hoc Committee proceedings before the Committee’s report was formally submitted to him. 49.The Petitioner therefore maintains that the entire process leading to her impeachment was predetermined, procedurally unfair and undertaken in violation of her constitutional rights to fair administrative action and a fair hearing. Submissions 50.The Petition was canvassed by way of written submissions pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 20th November 2025. The Petitioner filed submissions dated 23rd January 2026 while the Respondents filed submissions dated 23rd February 2026. In addition, the 2nd Respondent filed separate submissions dated 16th February 2026. 51.In her submissions, the Petitioner contends that the process leading to her impeachment and removal from office violated her constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution as well as her right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution and section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act. 52.According to the Petitioner, both the Ad Hoc Committee and the County Assembly were under a constitutional obligation to accord her a fair hearing in the process leading to her removal. The Petitioner averred that she was served with a letter dated 12th May 2025 notifying her of a petition seeking her removal and inviting her to appear before the Committee the following day. She contended that, despite the seriousness of the allegations levelled against her, she was only furnished with a copy of the petition without any supporting affidavits, witness statements or evidentiary material intended to be relied upon against her. 53.In this regard, the Petitioner submits that the failure to supply the said material was contrary to the guarantees under Article 50(2) of the Constitution. 54.The Petitioner further submitted that despite her request for additional time to prepare her defence, the 1st Respondent proceeded to hear the matter, prepare its report and facilitate the publication of a Gazette Notice convening a special sitting of the County Assembly, all within a short period of time. The Petitioner averred that the Gazette Notice convening the special sitting of the County Assembly for purposes of considering her removal was forwarded to the Government Printer even before the Ad Hoc Committee’s report had been transmitted to the Speaker. 55.It is the Petitioner’s submission that notwithstanding the requirement under Standing Order 63(2) to furnish her with the Committee’s report and the evidence to be tabled before the Assembly at least three days prior to the debate on the motion, the Respondents failed to comply with the said requirement, thereby violating both the law and the rules of fair hearing. 56.It is further the Petitioner’s submission that although the Committee had twenty-one days within which to consider the petition, the entire process was concluded within hours of notifying her of the hearing. The Petitioner contended that she was denied sufficient time to prepare, respond to the allegations, gather evidence and adequately brief counsel in order to mount a proper defence to the petition seeking her removal from office. 57.The Petitioner submitted that while the Respondents maintained that the Ad Hoc Committee’s report was forwarded to the Speaker on 14th May 2025, Gazette Notice No. 6248 had already been published on 13th May 2025 convening a special sitting of the Assembly to consider the said report. 58.According to the Petitioner, the chronology of events demonstrated that the process leading to her removal had effectively been predetermined even before the Committee concluded its deliberations. On this basis, the Petitioner asserted that she was denied a fair trial contrary to Article 50(2)(c) of the Constitution, the Standing Orders of the County Assembly and section 41 of the Employment Act. In support of this position, reliance was placed on the decision in Okoth V Jamii Telecommunication Limited (cause 1556 Of 2018) [2023) Keelrc 1643 (kilr) (10 July 2023) (judgment) 59.The Petitioner therefore urged the Court to find that one day’s notice within which to receive, digest, prepare and respond to a petition seeking her removal from office was manifestly unreasonable, oppressive and inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees of a fair hearing. According to the Petitioner, the refusal by the Respondents to accord her adequate time to prepare her defence constituted a blatant affront to her constitutional rights. 60.The Petitioner further submitted that the Respondents violated her right to fair administrative action as guaranteed under Article 47(1) of the Constitution and section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act. She argued that the impeachment process was conducted in a manner that violated several safeguards attendant to fair administrative action, including the right to prior and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the proposed action, the right to be heard and make representations, the right to legal representation, the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses and the right to be supplied with the evidence intended to be relied upon against her. The Petitioner further contended that she was denied adequate time to prepare her defence notwithstanding the fact that the Committee had sufficient time within which to hear and determine the petition. Reliance was placed on the decision in Barnabas K Ngeno V County Assembly Of Kericho & Another (2021| Keelrc 68 (klr), Where The Court Considered The Case Of County Assembly Of Kisumu & 2 Others- V- Kisumu County Assembly Services Board And 7 Others [2015] eKLR. 61.The Court was accordingly urged to find that the impeachment process undertaken against the Petitioner was fundamentally inconsistent with the rules of fairness, natural justice and constitutional due process. 62.The Petitioner further submitted that the Respondents failed to comply with the applicable Standing Orders of the West Pokot County Assembly governing the removal process. According to the Petitioner, the Standing Orders expressly set out the procedure to be followed in the removal of persons holding office, including the Petitioner. She contended that she was never supplied with a copy of the Ad Hoc Committee’s report at least three days before the debate on the motion for her removal as required under Standing Order 63(2). 63.The Petitioner further submitted that the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Standing Orders rested upon the Respondents. In support of her contention that the Respondents failed to comply with the Standing Orders governing the impeachment process, the Petitioner relied on the decisions in Republic V Clerk County Assembly Of Baringo; Kamket (ex Parte) (judicial Review Application 10f 2015) [2015] Keelrc 567 (klr) (31 July 2015) (judgment) and Omweno & 3 others v Governor, County Government of Kakamega & 4 others, Wanyama & Another (Interested parties) Petition E008 of 2023 (2024) KEELRC 1384 (KLR) 64.Lastly, the Petitioner submitted that the Respondents violated the rules of natural justice by failing to furnish her with a copy of the Ad Hoc Committee’s report at least three days before the debate in the County Assembly, despite the requirement that she be accorded an opportunity to defend herself in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House. In support of this position, reliance was placed on the decisions in Olo0 V Kisumu County Assembly Service Board & Another; O.c.s. Kisumu Central Police Station & 2 Others (interested Parties) [2025] Keca 333 (klr) And Kimani Alias Samuel Maina Gichuhi & 2others V Gichuhi (civil Appeal 34 OF 2020) (2025) KECA 991 (KLR) 65.In conclusion, the Petitioner submitted that she had demonstrated that the petition was merited, the process leading to her removal having been conducted in violation of her right to a fair hearing, the rules of natural justice and the applicable Standing Orders of the County Assembly. 66.The Court was therefore urged to allow the Petition with costs. 67.On their part, the Respondents identified the following issues for determination: -i.Whether the removal process was unconstitutional and illegalii.Whether the Petitioner was denied a fair hearingiii.Whether the remedies sought are available. 68.On the first issue, the Respondents submitted that the removal of the Petitioner as a member of the West Pokot County Assembly Service Board was lawful, constitutional and undertaken in full compliance with the Constitution, the County Assembly Service Act, 2017 and the West Pokot County Assembly Standing Orders. 69.The Respondents submitted that under section 5 of the County Assembly Service Act, the Petitioner was required to uphold the principles of integrity, accountability and professionalism. Further, under section 6(2) of the said Act, she was under an obligation to act in good faith and avoid any conflict of interest. The Respondents further contended that, as a State officer, the Petitioner was bound by the national values and principles of governance under Article 10 of the Constitution as well as the leadership and integrity provisions contained in Chapter Six of the Constitution. 70.According to the Respondents, the Petitioner breached the said obligations by making discriminatory public statements against women who had not undergone FGM, contrary to the constitutional values of equality, dignity and non-discrimination. 71.The Respondents further submitted that the Petitioner placed herself in a position of conflict of interest by expressing interest in the position of Women Representative while still serving as a member of the Board, thereby compromising the impartiality expected of her office. 72.The Respondents submitted that on 5th May 2025, the Clerk of the County Assembly received a petition seeking the removal of the Petitioner and thereafter forwarded the same to the 2nd Respondent in compliance with section 10 of the County Assembly Service Act, 2017. According to the Respondents, owing to the seriousness of the allegations raised against the Petitioner, the County Assembly, on 7th May 2025, approved the constitution of an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate the Petitioner's conduct. 73.It was further submitted that the Ad Hoc Committee convened its first meeting on 12th May 2025 under the chairmanship of Hon. Akisile and resolved to invite the Petitioner to appear before it on 13th May 2025. The Respondents contended that the invitation was issued in compliance with the requirements of due process and procedural fairness as prescribed under the Act and the applicable Standing Orders. 74.The Respondents submitted that the Petitioner did not personally appear before the Committee but instead sought a rescheduling of the hearing through the law firms of George Kalice & Co. Advocates and Kiarie & Co. Advocates. 75.The Respondents further submitted that on the scheduled hearing date, the Clerk confirmed that the Petitioner had been duly served with the invitation letter and the indictment against her and had also acknowledged receipt thereof through the Clerk’s office. 76.According to the Respondents, the Committee further observed that the Petitioner had circulated the invitation letter and the allegations against her on social media, which allegedly resulted in threats and intimidation directed at influencing the Committee’s deliberations. 77.The Respondents further contended that a subsequent invitation was issued to the Petitioner requiring her to appear before the Committee at 3.30 p.m., but that she declined to receive the same. According to the Respondents, having accorded the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard, the Committee thereafter proceeded to deliberate upon the matter and prepare its report. 78.The Respondents submitted that the Committee’s report was received by the 2nd Respondent on 14th May 2025 and was subsequently forwarded to the County Assembly for debate and consideration. 79.It was further submitted that a special sitting of the County Assembly was convened on 15th May 2025 at 10.00 a.m. and attended by 33 Members of the County Assembly. According to the Respondents, the Committee’s report was duly tabled, debated and adopted by the Assembly, following which the Members unanimously resolved to remove the Petitioner from office. 80.The Respondents further submitted that thereafter the 2nd Respondent was mandated, pursuant to Standing Order 26 of the West Pokot County Assembly Standing Orders, to gazette the Petitioner’s removal from office. According to the Respondents, the removal was lawfully effected and duly published through Gazette Notice No. 6425 dated 15th May 2025. 81.The Respondents further submitted that appointments to the County Assembly Service Board are political and statutory in nature and that the Petitioner’s appointment was part-time as contemplated under section 12(3A) of the County Assembly Service Act, 2017. It was their contention that the procedure prescribed under section 10 of the said Act was strictly complied with. The Respondents further argued that although Article 236 of the Constitution protects public officers from arbitrary removal from office, the said provision nevertheless permits removal where due process has been followed. 82.In this regard, the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner was subjected to a lawful, fair and procedurally compliant removal process and that her removal from office was therefore constitutional and valid. 83.On the second issue, the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner’s rights to fair administrative action and fair hearing under Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution were fully respected throughout the process. According to the Respondents, the Petitioner was duly notified of the allegations against her, invited to appear before the Ad Hoc Committee and informed of her right to legal representation. They further submitted that the Committee’s proceedings complied with the principles of natural justice, the essence of which is that a party must be afforded an opportunity to be heard. 84.The Respondents contended that although the Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the invitation and responded through her advocates, she nevertheless elected not to attend the scheduled hearings. It was their submission that the right to be heard is sufficiently satisfied once an affected party is accorded an opportunity to participate in the process and that the law does not require proceedings to be halted merely because such party declines to appear. In support of this position, reliance was placed on the decision in Orwoba v Attorney General & 4 others (Petition 2 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 49 (KLR)(Constitutional and Human Rights) (15 January 2025) (Judgment) 85.The Respondents therefore submitted that the Committee acted lawfully and fairly in proceeding with its deliberations and preparing its report in the Petitioner’s absence. According to the Respondents, the Petitioner could not subsequently claim violation of her right to fair hearing when the process had accorded her all the safeguards contemplated under Article 47 of the Constitution. Reliance was further placed on the decision in Kiptoo & 3 Others v Vice Chancellor, Strathmore University & 5 Others [2026| KEHC 1280 (KLR) 86.The Respondents thus urged the Court to find that the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness were fully observed and that the Petitioner’s removal could not be impugned on grounds of denial of a fair hearing. 87.Lastly on the issue whether the Court ought to interfere with the decision of the County Assembly, the Respondents submitted that the County Assembly acted within its lawful constitutional and statutory mandate in investigating the petition and ultimately resolving to remove the Petitioner from office. 88.It is the Respondents’ submission that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety capable of warranting this Court’s intervention in the decision of the County Assembly. In addition, the Respondents aver that the Petitioner has failed to establish any violation of her constitutional rights or statutory protections and is consequently not entitled to the reliefs sought in the Petition. 89.The Court was therefore urged to dismiss the petition costs. 90.The 2nd Respondent’s submissions dated 16th February 2026 largely repeat the arguments already made in the Respondents’ submissions dated 23rd February 2026 and I therefore need not repeat them in detail. Determination 91.I have carefully considered the Petition, the rival affidavits filed by the parties, the annextures thereto, the submissions by counsels and the authorities relied upon. In my view, the central issue arising for determination is whether the process leading to the Petitioner’s impeachment and removal as a member of the West Pokot County Assembly Service Board complied with the Constitution, the Fair Administrative Action Act and the applicable Standing Orders of the County Assembly. 92.It is common ground that the Petitioner was appointed as a member of the West Pokot County Assembly Service Board on 13th June 2023. It is also not disputed that on 12th May 2025 at about 4.55 p.m., she received communication notifying her of a petition seeking her removal from office and requiring her to appear before the Ad Hoc Committee on 13th May 2025 at 10.00 a.m. 93.The Petitioner’s grievance is that the notice issued to her was manifestly short and that she was not supplied with all the material necessary to enable her prepare an adequate defence. According to the Petitioner, the supporting affidavit and video clip referred to in the petition were not supplied. She further contends that despite seeking additional time to prepare her response and instruct counsel, the Ad Hoc Committee proceeded with the hearing in her absence. 94.The Respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the Petitioner was duly notified of the allegations against her, informed of her right to legal representation and accorded an opportunity to appear before the Committee but failed to do so. They contend that the Committee was therefore entitled to proceed with the proceedings and prepare its report. 95.The right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution and the right to a fair hearing under Article 50 are cardinal constitutional guarantees that bind all public bodies and state organs whenever they undertake administrative or quasi-judicial processes. The essence of these provisions is that a person facing adverse action must be given adequate notice of the allegations against them, sufficient time and facilities to prepare a response, access to the material intended to be relied upon and a meaningful opportunity to present their case before a decision adverse to them is made. 96.The right to fair administrative action is articulated in Article 47 of the Constitution as follows:1.Every person has the right to fair administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.2.If a right or fundamental freedom of a person has been or is likely to be adversely affected by administrative action, the person has the right to be given written reasons for the action.3.Parliament shall enact legislation to give effect to the rights in clause (1) and that legislation shall-a.provide for the review of administrative action by a court or, if appropriate, an independent and impartial tribunal; andb.promote efficient administration. 97.In addition, Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act lays down the procedure to be adopted by the administrator as follows:-Where an administrative action is likely to adversely affect the rights of fundamental freedoms of any person, the administrator shall give the person affected by the decision-a.Prior and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the proposed administrative action;b.An opportunity to be heard and to make representations in that regard;c.Notice of a right to a review or internal appeal against an administrative decision where applicable;d.A statement of reasons pursuant to Section 6;e.Notice of the right to legal representation, where applicable;f.Notice of the right to cross examine or where applicable; org.Information, materials and evidence to be relied upon in making the decision or taking the administrative action. 98.The Petitioner herein was notified of the proceedings on the evening of 12th May 2025 and required to appear before the Ad Hoc Committee the following morning at 10.00 a.m. In the circumstances of this matter, and considering the gravity of the allegations and the consequences attendant to removal from office, the Court finds that the period between service and the scheduled hearing was manifestly short and unreasonable. A process that threatens a person’s tenure in public office must accord such person reasonable time within which to understand the accusations, seek legal advice, gather relevant material and prepare a defence. 99.The evidence placed before Court further demonstrates that immediately upon receipt of the notice, the Petitioner protested the timelines and sought additional time both personally and through counsel. The Respondents did not place before Court any evidence demonstrating that the said requests were reasonably considered before the Committee elected to proceed with the hearing. In the Court’s view, the failure to consider a request for adjournment made on reasonable grounds may itself amount to procedural unfairness. 100.It is also noteworthy that whereas the Ad Hoc Committee had twenty-one days within which to conduct investigations and prepare its report, the entire impeachment process was concluded within approximately four days. The haste with which the proceedings were undertaken lends credence to the Petitioner’s assertion that the process was rushed and fell short of the constitutional standards of fairness and due process. 101.The Petitioner further complained that she was never furnished with the report and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee prior to the debate before the County Assembly contrary to Standing Order 63(2). The Respondents did not place before Court any evidence demonstrating compliance with the said Standing Order. Standing Orders are binding procedural rules intended to regulate proceedings of legislative bodies and ensure fairness in the conduct of their affairs. Failure to comply with mandatory Standing Orders, particularly those touching on fair hearing, cannot be treated as a mere procedural technicality. 102.The Court further observes that Gazette Notice No. 6248 convening a special sitting of the County Assembly was issued on 13th May 2025 before the Ad Hoc Committee had allegedly concluded its proceedings and transmitted its report to the Speaker on 14th May 2025. The Respondents did not satisfactorily explain this inconsistency in the chronology of events. The sequence of events raises legitimate concerns as to whether the outcome of the process had effectively been predetermined before the Committee concluded its mandate. 103.While the Court appreciates that the County Assembly was exercising a lawful constitutional and statutory mandate in inquiring into allegations touching on integrity and misconduct against the Petitioner, the exercise of such mandate was nevertheless subject to the Constitution and the principles of procedural fairness. Public bodies cannot invoke the seriousness of allegations facing a person as justification for disregarding constitutional safeguards. The Constitution demands that even where allegations appear grave, the process adopted must remain fair, impartial and procedurally sound. 104.The Respondents have argued that the Petitioner voluntarily failed to attend the proceedings despite being accorded an opportunity to do so. However, the right to be heard is not satisfied merely by extending a formal invitation to attend proceedings. The opportunity afforded must be real, reasonable and effective. In the circumstances of this case, the Court is unable to find that the Petitioner was afforded a meaningful opportunity to prepare and present her defence. 105.The Respondents also alleged that the Petitioner circulated the allegations and invitation through social media thereby exposing members of the Committee to threats and intimidation. However, no cogent evidence was placed before Court to substantiate those allegations. 106.This Court reiterates that constitutional and statutory bodies exercising disciplinary or oversight functions must not only act within the law but must also be seen to act fairly. Administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings derive their legitimacy not merely from the authority of the institution conducting them but from adherence to the principles of fairness, transparency and due process. 107.Consequently, the Court is satisfied that the process leading to the Petitioner’s impeachment and removal as a member of the West Pokot County Assembly Service Board did not meet the threshold of procedural fairness contemplated under Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution, section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act and the applicable Standing Orders of the West Pokot County Assembly. 108.In the upshot, I find and hold that the Petitioner has established that her impeachment and removal from office was procedurally unfair, unconstitutional and unlawful. 109.Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered in favour of the Petitioner in the following terms:a.A declaration is hereby issued that the impeachment and removal of the Petitioner as a member of the West Pokot County Assembly Service Board on 15th May 2025 was unconstitutional, unlawful and procedurally unfair.b.An order of certiorari is hereby issued removing into this Court and quashing the decision of the Respondents made on 15th May 2025 removing the Petitioner as a member of the West Pokot County Assembly Service Board.c.I have however noted the hostility with which the Respondents removed the Petitioner from office and the length of time that has lapsed since her removal from office. I am not convinced that reinstating her would be in her best interest as she is likely to be subjected to further hostile treatment by the Respondents. I will therefore in lieu of reinstating the Petitioner, award her compensatory damages. Having considered all prevailing circumstances, it is my view that damages in the sum of Kshs. 3,800,000 will adequately compensate her for both the unfair loss of her position as member of the County Assembly Service Board and for the violation of her constitutional rights.d.The 1st Respondent shall pay the said sum and bear the Petitioner’s costs of this suit. DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED ON THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.M. ONYANGOJUDGE