[2017] KEELRC 308 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 308 (KLR)

The court found that the 1st respondent acted ultra vires by interdicting the applicant without proper jurisdiction and in disregard of the County Secretary's absolution of the applicant. The applicant was not accorded a fair hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The disciplinary process was tainted...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 308 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Nandi County Public Service Board; Respondent: County Government of Nandi; Applicant: Peter Achenchi Mokoro
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review 3 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice of Motion
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
DKN Marete
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Procedure, Natural Justice, Interdiction, Public Service Employment
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Disciplinary Procedure Natural Justice Interdiction Public Service Employment

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Nandi County Public Service Board

Respondent

County Government of Nandi

Respondent

Peter Achenchi Mokoro

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st respondent's interdiction of the applicant was ultra vires and without legal basis.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's right to natural justice was violated by not being given an opportunity to be heard.
  3. 3 Whether the 1st respondent had jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against the applicant despite the County Secretary's absolution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st respondent acted ultra vires by interdicting the applicant without proper jurisdiction and in disregard of the County Secretary's absolution of the applicant. The applicant was not accorded a fair hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The disciplinary process was tainted by internal power struggles and lacked legal foundation. The court held that the decision to interdict was unlawful, unprocedural, and must be quashed. The applicant was entitled to judicial review remedies to protect his legal position and ensure justice.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • An order of certiorari is issued to quash the decision of the 1st respondent made on 4th May, 2017 effecting the applicant's interdiction.
  • An order of prohibition is issued to prohibit the 2nd respondent from executing the decision of the 1st respondent interdicting the applicant.