Abdi Mohamed Abdullahi v The Board Chairman, National Water Harvesting & Storage Authority & 3 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. Justice Hellen S. Wasilwa
Judgment Date
September 29, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Discover the key insights and rulings from Abdi Mohamed Abdullahi v The Board Chairman, National Water Harvesting & Storage Authority & 3 others [2020] eKLR. Explore the case summary for a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles involved.

Case Brief: Abdi Mohamed Abdullahi v The Board Chairman, National Water Harvesting & Storage Authority & 3 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Abdi Mohamed Abdullahi v. The Board Chairman, National Water Harvesting & Storage Authority & Others
- Case Number: Petition No. 116 of 2020 (PET EO14 OF 2020)
- Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nairobi
- Date Delivered: 29th September 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. Justice Hellen S. Wasilwa
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues before the court include:
- Whether the recruitment process initiated by the Re-Advertisement Notice dated 30th June 2020 for the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the National Water Harvesting and Storage Authority was valid.
- If the previous recruitment process from the Notice dated 11th June 2019 was concluded and whether it met constitutional and legal requirements.
- What remedies should be granted in the event of a breach of legal requirements.

3. Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, Abdi Mohamed Abdullahi, contested the recruitment process for the CEO position of the National Water Harvesting and Storage Authority. The recruitment process initially began with a notice on 11th June 2019, which attracted 51 applications, and culminated in the selection of three top candidates: Engineer Sammy M. Mburu, Andrew Mukhisa Wanyonyi, and Ali Boru. However, complications arose when the top candidate was arrested on charges of corruption, leading to a halt in the recruitment process. Following the death of the top candidate and subsequent changes in leadership, the authority issued a new advertisement on 30th June 2020, which the petitioner argued was unconstitutional and violated established recruitment protocols.

4. Procedural History:
The petitioner filed the petition on 23rd July 2020, seeking various declarations regarding the recruitment process. He argued that the June 2020 advertisement was invalid and that the recruitment process from June 2019 should be recognized as valid. The respondents, including the Board Chairman and the Cabinet Secretary, opposed the petition, arguing that the recruitment process was ongoing and that the petition lacked merit. The court heard submissions from both parties and considered the legal implications of the recruitment procedures.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered various legal provisions, including Articles 10, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 35, 73, 232, and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya, as well as Section 33 of the Water Act and the Public Service (Values and Principles) Act, 2015.
- Case Law: The respondents cited previous cases to support their arguments regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the separation of powers. The petitioner referenced cases to highlight the expectation of appointment based on merit and adherence to the rule of law.
- Application: The court found that the recruitment process from the June 2019 advertisement had not been concluded due to the ongoing issues with the top candidate. As a result, the subsequent advertisement in June 2020 was deemed unconstitutional and void. The court emphasized the importance of transparency and adherence to legal requirements in public appointments.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring the June 2020 recruitment process invalid and ordering the 3rd respondent to appoint a CEO from the remaining top candidates within seven days. The ruling reinforced the necessity for compliance with legal standards in public sector recruitment.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the case, as the judgment was delivered by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The case underscored the importance of lawful and transparent recruitment processes in public service. The court's decision to invalidate the June 2020 advertisement and uphold the previous recruitment process highlights the legal obligations of public authorities to adhere to established procedures and principles of fairness and accountability. The ruling serves as a precedent for similar cases involving recruitment and appointment within state corporations in Kenya.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Abdi-Mohamed-Abdullahi-v-The-Board-Chairman-National-Water-Harvesting--Storage-Authority--3-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1388_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries