[2023] KECPT 1081 (KLR)

[2023] KECPT 1081 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the inquiry officers were properly appointed by the Commissioner for Cooperative Development and acted within their mandate. The inquiry report, though not naming the Appellants at the outset, developed findings as the inquiry progressed and provided a breakdown of the alleged misappropriated...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KECPT 1081 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Elias Kariuki; Appellant: Isaiah Cunguti; Appellant: James Ireri Stephen; Appellant: Jane A. Karanga; Appellant: Njeru Mbogo; Appellant: Susan Wairimu Nyaga; Appellant: William Mbungu; Respondent: The Commissioner for Cooperative Development; Interested Party: Tuungane Tujijenge Sacco Limited; Interested Party: Quickline Auctioneers
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Appeal 5 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
BM Kimemia, J. Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Right to Be Heard, Administrative Inquiries, Surcharge Procedure
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Natural Justice Right to Be Heard Administrative Inquiries Surcharge Procedure

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elias Kariuki

Appellant

Isaiah Cunguti

Appellant

James Ireri Stephen

Appellant

Jane A. Karanga

Appellant

Njeru Mbogo

Appellant

Susan Wairimu Nyaga

Appellant

William Mbungu

Appellant

The Commissioner for Cooperative Development

Respondent

Tuungane Tujijenge Sacco Limited

Interested Party

Quickline Auctioneers

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the inquiry conducted by Hesbon M. Kiuria and Nicholas Ndirangu was tainted with bias or irregularities.
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants were denied the right to be heard and fair administrative action.
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner for Cooperative Development acted within jurisdiction in surcharging the Appellants.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the inquiry officers were properly appointed by the Commissioner for Cooperative Development and acted within their mandate. The inquiry report, though not naming the Appellants at the outset, developed findings as the inquiry progressed and provided a breakdown of the alleged misappropriated amount. The Tribunal determined that the Appellants were served with notices to show cause and responded, albeit only with denials, thus were afforded an adequate opportunity to be heard. There was no evidence of bias or illegality in the inquiry process. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellants' rights to fair hearing and due process were not violated, and the surcharge...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Appellants' appeal dated 10th November 2020 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Interested Party.