[2018] KEELRC 2519 (KLR)
The Court determined that the grounds raised in the 4th and 5th Respondents' application challenging jurisdiction and alleging abuse of process were central to the Petition and would require factual ascertainment. Hearing the application separately from the Petition would not be prudent and would result in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 2519 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Okiya Omtatah Okoiti; Respondent: Ministry of Health; Respondent: Public Service Commission; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Dr. Hezekiah Chepkwony; Respondent: Dr. Pius Wanjala
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 86 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Directions/ruling on Hearing Procedure and Consolidation of Application With Petition
- Outcome
- Application by 4th and 5th Respondents to be treated as part of their answer to the Petition; directions issued for filing of replies and submissions; costs in the cause.
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Disciplinary Proceedings, Public Office Ethics, Jurisdiction of Court, Fundamental Rights, National Values, Abuse of Process
- 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
Okiya Omtatah Okoiti
Petitioner
Ministry of Health
Respondent
Public Service Commission
Respondent
Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Dr. Hezekiah Chepkwony
Respondent
Dr. Pius Wanjala
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Directions/ruling on Hearing Procedure and Consolidation of Application With Petition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application by the 4th and 5th Respondents challenging jurisdiction should be heard separately from the main Petition.
- 2 Whether the grounds raised in the application go to the core of the Petition and require factual ascertainment.
- 3 Whether judicial time would be better utilised by hearing the application and Petition together.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court determined that the grounds raised in the 4th and 5th Respondents' application challenging jurisdiction and alleging abuse of process were central to the Petition and would require factual ascertainment. Hearing the application separately from the Petition would not be prudent and would result in unnecessary duplication and wastage of judicial time. Therefore, the Court directed that the application be treated as part of the Respondents' answer to the Petition, and set timelines for the filing of substantive replies and submissions by all parties, to ensure the matter is determined comprehensively and efficiently.
Court Disposition
Application by 4th and 5th Respondents to be treated as part of their answer to the Petition; directions issued for filing of replies and submissions; costs in the cause.
Orders
- The 4th and 5th Respondents' application dated 18 December 2017 to be taken as part of their answer/replies to the Petition.
- Respondents to file and serve their substantive answers/replies to the Petition on or before 16 February 2018.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
45 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
PETITION NO. 86 OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 19, 20, 22(1) & (2)(C), 23, 162(2)(A), 165(5)(B) AND 258(1) & (2)(C) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF: THE ALLEGED COONTRAVENTION AND VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL VALUES AND PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNANCE IN ARTICLES 1, 2, 3(1), 10(1) & (2)(A) & (C), 73, 75(1) AND 232(1)(A),(D),(E),(F) & (2)(B) AND 259(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF: THE ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION AND VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 27, 41(1) AND 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF: THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO TAKE DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST DR. HEZEKIAH CHEPKWONY AND DR. PIUS WANJALA.
BETWEEN
OKIYA OMTATAH OKOITI.................................PETITIONER
V
MINISTRY OF HEALTH............................1ST RESPONDENT
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION..........2ND RESPONDENT
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL..................3RD RESPONDENT
DR. HEZEKIAH CHEPKWONY..............4TH RESPONDENT
DR. PIUS WANJALA.................................5TH RESPONDENT
DIRECTIONS/RULING
1. Okiya Omtatah Okoiti (Petitioner) moved Court on 11 October 2017 seeking a declaration that the 4th and 5th Respondents were not fit to hold public office and an order compelling the 1st to 3rd Respondents to take disciplinary action against them (4th and 5th Respondents).
2. Filed together with the Petition was a motion under certificate of urgency seeking directions as to the hearing of the Petition.
3. Wasilwa J before whom the application was placed certified it as urgent and directed that it be served upon the Respondents. The Judge also fixed the application for mention before Ndolo J on 17 October 2017.
4. The parties did not appear before Ndolo J but appeared before Mbaru J on 18 October 2017, who redirected the file to Ndolo J with mention scheduled for 25 October 2017 (mention did not proceed as the day was declared a public holiday).
5. On 7 November 2017, Abuodha J directed the parties to appear before Ndolo J on 20 November 2017 for further directions.
6. On 18 December 2017, the 4th and 5th Respondents filed an application under certificate of urgency questioning the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the Petition and seeking that it be struck out (res judicata and abuse of court process were invoked).
7. On the same day, Wasilwa J directed that the application be served for the purpose of giving directions on 19 December 2017.
8. On 19 December 2017, Ndolo J notified the parties that the directions would be given on 23 January 2018 (Ndolo J was transferred in the intervening period).
9. When the file was placed before me on 23 January 2018, the 4th and 5th Respondents sought a date for the hearing of their application dated 18 December 2017.
10. The Petitioner on his part proposed that the application dated 18 December 2017 be treated as a response to the Petition (despite having filed a response to the application).
11. The 1st to 3rd Respondents appeared to agree to the proposal by the Petitioner that the 4th and 5th Respondents application ought to be treated as a response to the Petition, and further suggested that the Petition and the application could be heard together.
12. The Court has considered the brief oral addresses by the parties and also looked at the record.
13. The grounds outlined by the 4th and 5th Respondents in their application go to the core of the Petition. Some of the grounds would require the Court to ascertain the facts as obtained by the time the Petition was filed.
14. It would therefore not be prudent to hear and determine the application and Petition separately. Precious judicial time would be better utilised by determining the Petition and application once and for all.
15. In this respect the Court directs as follows
i. The 4th and 5th Respondents application dated 18 December 2017 to be taken as part of their answer/replies to the Petition.
ii. The Respondents to file and serve their substantive answers/replies to the Petition on or before 16 February 2018.
iii. Petitioner at liberty to file and serve replies (if any) to the Respondents answers/replies and submissions on or before 23 February 2018.
iv. Respondents to file and serve submissions on or before 2 March 2018.
v. Submissions to be highlighted on a convenient date to be fixed on 2 March 2018.
16. Costs in the Cause.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nairobi on this 26th day of January 2018.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Petitioner in person
1st – 3rd Respondents Ms. Odhiambo, Office of the Attorney General
4th – 5th Respondents Ms. Kiarie instructed by Kinyanjui Njuguna & Co. Advocates
Court Assistant Lindsey