[2015] KEHC 2998 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 2998 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of leave to apply for judicial review. The Board's decision to require the applicant to step aside was based on issues previously resolved and a private criminal prosecution that had been stayed by the court. The applicant alleged...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 2998 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Eng. Moses Agumba Orot; Respondent: Board of Directors Lake Victoria South Water Services Board; Respondent: Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Water & Irrigation; Respondent: Attorney General; Interested Party: Chairman Board of Directors Lake Victoria South Water Services Board
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 8 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Leave to Apply for Judicial Review and Stay
Outcome
Leave granted to apply for judicial review; leave to operate as stay; directions for filing and mention given.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Public Officer Removal, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Natural Justice Public Officer Removal Procedural Fairness

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eng. Moses Agumba Orot

Applicant

Board of Directors Lake Victoria South Water Services Board

Respondent

Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Water & Irrigation

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Chairman Board of Directors Lake Victoria South Water Services Board

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Leave to Apply for Judicial Review and Stay

  1. 1 Whether the Board of Directors acted ultra vires in asking the applicant to step aside from his position as CEO.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied the right to be heard in violation of natural justice.
  3. 3 Whether the Board's decision was tainted by malice or lack of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of leave to apply for judicial review. The Board's decision to require the applicant to step aside was based on issues previously resolved and a private criminal prosecution that had been stayed by the court. The applicant alleged denial of the right to be heard and that the Board acted outside its mandate. These allegations raised plausible issues of jurisdiction and procedural fairness that warranted further examination in substantive proceedings. Accordingly, the court granted leave to apply for orders of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, and ordered that the leave operate as a stay of the impugned...

Court Disposition

Leave granted to apply for judicial review; leave to operate as stay; directions for filing and mention given.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicant to apply for certiorari to quash the Board's decision of 27th August 2015.
  • Leave is granted to apply for prohibition against the Cabinet Secretary from acting on the Board's decision or appointing another CEO.