[2001] KEHC 102 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any breach of the Egerton University Act or principles of natural justice by the Staff Disciplinary Committee. The applicant was given an opportunity to defend himself, and the Committee acted within its jurisdiction. The absence of evidence showing procedural...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 102 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Duncan Murono Waluchio; Defendant: Egerton University College
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 69 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judicial Review
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- DM Rimita
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Mandamus, Disciplinary Proceedings, Natural Justice
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Duncan Murono Waluchio
Plaintiff
Egerton University College
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judicial Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Staff Disciplinary Committee of Egerton University acted in breach of the law or natural justice in summarily dismissing the applicant.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to orders of certiorari and mandamus to quash the dismissal and compel reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any breach of the Egerton University Act or principles of natural justice by the Staff Disciplinary Committee. The applicant was given an opportunity to defend himself, and the Committee acted within its jurisdiction. The absence of evidence showing procedural impropriety or excess of jurisdiction meant that the court had no basis to interfere with the decision of the domestic tribunal. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 22nd March, 2001 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
MISC. CIVIL CASE NO.69 OF 200
DUNCAN MURONO WALUCHIO………………………..……..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EGERTON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE………………………….DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This is an application for judicial review. It is dated 22nd March, 2001. The application is brought under Order LIII r.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application seeks, First an order of certiorari to issue against Egerton University to remove and quash the Staff Disciplinary Committee’s decision of 7th September, 2000 which summarily dismissed the subject on 11th September, 2000.
There is also a prayer for mandamus to compel Egerton University to reinstate the subject.
The application is grounded on several grounds on the body of the application, statement of facts and a verifying affidavit sworn by the applicant.
The application is opposed by the Respondent University. What appears to have happened is that the applicant and three other employees of the respondent were suspected of stealing timber. They were all summoned before the Staff Disciplinary Committee of Egerton University. The Subject/Applicant was found guilty and a letter of Summary Dismissal served upon him.
The proceedings of the said Staff Disciplinary Committee were not exhibited by the applicant. But the letter of Summary dismissal was. The allegations by the applicant are far fetched. The applicant has not shown me what provisions of the Egerton University Act were breached by the Committee. The applicant was given a chance to defend himself. The Committee found that he had stolen timber. He did not have to be charged in a court of law I have no business interfering with domestic tribunals where the tribunals cannot be accused of breaking the law, exceeding their jurisdiction or acting in breach of natural justice.
I find no merits in the application dated 22nd March, 2001. The same is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Dated and delivered at Nakuru this 9th day of November, 2001.
D. M. RIMITA
JUDGE
9. 11. 2001