Daniel Omondi Ogada & 2 others v County Assembly of Homabay & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma
Judgment Date
October 15, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Daniel Omondi Ogada & 2 others v County Assembly of Homabay & 2 others [2020] eKLR. Discover key legal findings and implications in this informative overview.

Case Brief: Daniel Omondi Ogada & 2 others v County Assembly of Homabay & 2 others [2020] eKL

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Daniel Omondi Ogada & Others v. County Assembly of Homabay & Others
- Case Number: Petition No. 42 of 2019
- Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Date Delivered: 15th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving the following central legal issues:
- Whether the mechanism adopted by the respondents to remove the petitioners from the Homabay County Public Service Board was lawful.
- If the removal was unlawful, whether the petitioners were entitled to the reliefs sought.

3. Facts of the Case:
The petitioners, Daniel Omondi Ogada, Collins Odhiambo Agutu, and Tobias Odundo, were members of the Homabay County Public Service Board. They alleged that the respondents, which included the County Assembly of Homabay, the County Government of Homabay, and the Governor of Homabay County, unlawfully sought to remove them from their positions before the expiry of their terms. The petitioners contended that this removal violated their constitutional rights, specifically citing Articles 28, 41, 43, 47, 48, 50, 236, and 251 of the Constitution of Kenya, as well as relevant provisions of the County Government Act and the Employment Act.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the Employment and Labour Relations Court, where the petitioners filed their petition seeking various declarations and orders, including a judicial review of the actions taken against them by the respondents. The court initially granted interim orders while the petition was pending. The respondents acknowledged their intention to remove the petitioners but claimed the process was lawful. The court ultimately considered the merits of the petition rather than the interlocutory applications.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court examined the removal process under Article 251 of the Constitution, which stipulates the grounds and procedure for the removal of members from constitutional and independent offices, requiring a formal petition to be presented. Additionally, Section 58(5) of the County Government Act was relevant, mandating a two-thirds majority vote from the County Assembly for such removals.
- Case Law: The court cited previous rulings, including *Nashon Oguya & Others v. County Assembly of Kisumu* (2018) and *Mundia Njeru Gateria v. Embu County Government* (2015), which established that the removal of County Public Service Board members must adhere to constitutional provisions and procedural fairness. In *Hussein Roba Boru v. County Government of Isiolo* (2015), it was emphasized that a formal petition must be submitted for removal proceedings to commence.
- Application: The court found that the respondents had not followed the required procedures, as no formal petition was presented to the Assembly. The absence of a valid petition constituted a breach of the petitioners' rights to fair administrative action and due process as enshrined in Articles 41, 47, 48, 50, and 236 of the Constitution. Consequently, the court ruled that the respondents' actions were unlawful and violated the petitioners' rights.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the removal process adopted by the respondents unlawful. It ordered that the 1st respondent's authority to remove the petitioners only arises upon the presentation of a formal petition. The court also mandated that the 2nd and 3rd respondents had no authority to discipline or remove the petitioners and directed them to pay all arrears and future remuneration due to the petitioners.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the judgment.

8. Summary:
The Employment and Labour Relations Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, affirming that the removal process employed by the respondents was unlawful and violated the petitioners' constitutional rights. This case underscores the necessity for adherence to due process and the rule of law in administrative actions, particularly regarding the removal of public officials. The decision reinforces the importance of formal procedures in safeguarding the rights of individuals in public service roles.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Daniel-Omondi-Ogada--2-others-v-County-Assembly-of-Homabay--2-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2100_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries