[2019] KEELRC 132 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 132 (KLR)

The court found that the respondents, by conducting a repeat recruitment process and reappointing the 3rd respondent after the court had already nullified his previous appointment, acted in blatant disregard of the court's judgment. The court held that its original orders were clear: the 3rd respondent was to be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 132 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Julius Masiva Obuga; Respondent: County Assembly Service Board of Vihiga; Respondent: County Assembly of Vihiga; Respondent: Kilinga Ambaka; Respondent: Nahashon Kusina Opanga
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 14 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Post Judgment Contempt and Enforcement Ruling
Outcome
Application allowed; repeat appointment declared unlawful; respondents censured for contempt; costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Unlawful Appointment, Contempt of Court, Public Service Recruitment, Judicial Review, Remedies for Illegal Appointments
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Administrative Law Unlawful Appointment Contempt of Court Public Service Recruitment Judicial Review Remedies for Illegal Appointments

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius Masiva Obuga

Applicant

County Assembly Service Board of Vihiga

Respondent

County Assembly of Vihiga

Respondent

Kilinga Ambaka

Respondent

Nahashon Kusina Opanga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Post Judgment Contempt and Enforcement Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the respondents acted in contempt of court by repeating an appointment process previously nullified by the court.
  2. 2 Whether the repeat appointment of the 3rd respondent as clerk was unlawful and in violation of the court's prior orders.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents should be compelled to implement the court's original judgment and bear costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents, by conducting a repeat recruitment process and reappointing the 3rd respondent after the court had already nullified his previous appointment, acted in blatant disregard of the court's judgment. The court held that its original orders were clear: the 3rd respondent was to be excluded from consideration, and the appointment process was to proceed with the candidates previously approved and recommended by the County Assembly Service Board. The respondents' actions amounted to willful contempt of court, subverted the rights of the successful candidates, and undermined the integrity of public service recruitment. The court censured the respondents,...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; repeat appointment declared unlawful; respondents censured for contempt; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The repeat appointment of the 3rd respondent as clerk of the County Assembly of Vihiga is declared unlawful, null and void ab initio.
  • The respondents are directed to immediately implement the court's judgment delivered on 13th December 2018.