Geoffrey Kiprotich Sang v Chairman, Board of Directors National Water Harvesting and Storage Authority & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango
Judgment Date
October 16, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the 2020 eKLR case summary of Geoffrey Kiprotich Sang v Chairman, Board of Directors National Water Harvesting and Storage Authority & another. Gain insights on the legal outcomes and implications of this judgment.

Case Brief: Geoffrey Kiprotich Sang v Chairman, Board of Directors National Water Harvesting and Storage Authority & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Eng. Geoffrey Kiprotich Sang v. The Chairman, Board of Directors National Water Harvesting and Storage Authority
- Case Number: Petition No. 68 of 2020
- Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, Kenya
- Date Delivered: 16th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving three primary legal issues:
- Whether the Respondents maliciously orchestrated the suspension and removal of the Petitioner from his positions within the National Water Harvesting and Storage Authority.
- Whether the 9th Special Board Meeting was irregular and if the resolutions passed therein were null and void.
- Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the orders sought in the petition.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Petitioner, Eng. Geoffrey Kiprotich Sang, was appointed as the Chief Engineer of the National Water Harvesting and Storage Authority on 2nd November 2015 and later as the Acting Chief Executive Officer on 18th November 2019. Following his appointment, he alleged that the 1st Respondent and certain members of the Board engaged in a scheme to unlawfully suspend and remove him from office. This was evidenced by a series of actions, including the advertisement of his position without proper justification and the convening of a Board meeting from which he was excluded. The Petitioner claimed that these actions violated his constitutional rights and led to his wrongful removal from office.

4. Procedural History:
The Petitioner filed his petition on 4th May 2020, seeking various declarations and injunctions against the Respondents. The Respondents, in their defense, argued that the revocation of the Petitioner’s appointment was justified due to allegations of misconduct, specifically regarding tender management. The court heard the case through written submissions, considering both parties' arguments and the relevant legal framework.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered multiple constitutional provisions, including Articles 10, 27, 41, 47, and 236 of the Constitution of Kenya, alongside Sections 5, 44, 45, and 46 of the Employment Act 2007, which protect workers' rights and outline fair administrative actions.
- Case Law: The court referenced prior cases, including *Geothermal Development Company Limited v Attorney General* and *Joseph Mbalu Mutava v Attorney General & another*, to establish the principles of natural justice and the requirement for fair administrative processes.
- Application: The court found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support claims of malice or procedural violations regarding the Board's actions. The Respondents' decisions were deemed to be made in good faith, and the court noted that the Petitioner’s acting position did not guarantee job security, leading to the conclusion that there was no violation of his rights.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of his constitutional rights or the Employment Act. The decision underscored the principle that acting appointments are temporary and can be revoked at the discretion of the employer, provided due process is followed.

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

8. Summary:
The case highlights the complexities surrounding employment rights, particularly in acting positions within public institutions. The court's ruling reinforces the notion that temporary appointments can be revoked without extensive procedural requirements, provided that actions are taken in good faith and with justifiable reasons. This case serves as a significant reference point for future disputes involving employment rights and administrative actions in Kenya.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Geoffrey-Kiprotich-Sang-v-Chairman-Board-of-Directors-National-Water-Harvesting-and-Storage-Authority--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2119_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries