[2021] KEELRC 1818 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 1818 (KLR)

The Court found that the removal process of the Petitioner as Speaker was not concluded due to disruption during the vote-counting process, and that the Petitioner acted unlawfully by reconvening the Assembly and declaring the motion lost. The Court held that only the acting Speaker had the authority to preside over...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 1818 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Hon David Ondimu Kombo; Respondent: County Assembly of Kisii; Respondent: County Assembly Service Board, Kisii; Respondent: Hon Samuel Angasa Onukoh
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition E001 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Removal of Speaker, County Government Procedure, Fair Administrative Action, Right to Fair Hearing
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Employment and Labour Removal of Speaker County Government Procedure Fair Administrative Action Right to Fair Hearing

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hon David Ondimu Kombo

Applicant

County Assembly of Kisii

Respondent

County Assembly Service Board, Kisii

Respondent

Hon Samuel Angasa Onukoh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the removal process of the Petitioner as Speaker of the County Assembly of Kisii complied with the Constitution, County Governments Act, and Standing Orders.
  2. 2 Whether the Petitioner was unlawfully prevented from performing his duties as Speaker.
  3. 3 Whether the 3rd Respondent was lawfully appointed or continued as acting Speaker after the disputed motion.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the removal process of the Petitioner as Speaker was not concluded due to disruption during the vote-counting process, and that the Petitioner acted unlawfully by reconvening the Assembly and declaring the motion lost. The Court held that only the acting Speaker had the authority to preside over and declare the outcome of the removal motion. The Court further determined that the 14-day period for considering the motion began when the Assembly was seized of the motion on the floor, not when notice was given to the Clerk. The Petitioner's premature resumption of duties and declaration of the motion's outcome were found to be contrary to the law and the Standing Orders....

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • The Petition is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.