Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v. Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Health & Others Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Constitutional and Human Rights Division
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. J. A. Makau
Judgment Date
October 22, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v. Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Health & Others case summary, analyzing key legal principles and impact on health policy in Kenya.

Case Brief: Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Health, Public Health Officers and Technicians Council, Kepha Mogere Ombacho & Attorney General; Simon Kimani, William Kitagwa, Vincent M Idur, Vitalis Lukiri, Redempta Muendo & Fatuma H Aden (Interested parties)

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v. Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Health & Others
- Case Number: Petition No. 562 of 2017
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Constitutional & Human Rights Division
- Date Delivered: October 22, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. J. A. Makau
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving several legal issues, including:
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
- Whether the Constitution was violated by the respondents.
- Whether the 3rd Respondent's failure to submit accounts to the Auditor General violated constitutional provisions.
- Whether the 3rd Respondent acted unlawfully in appointing Mr. Simon Kimani as Acting Chairman.
- The validity of the appointments made by the 3rd Respondent to the Public Health Officers and Technicians Council.
- The legality of the fees imposed for professional examinations.
- The accreditation status of Moi University.

3. Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, Okiya Omtatah Okoiti, alleged violations of constitutional rights regarding the management of the Public Health Officers and Technicians Council (PHOTC) by the 3rd Respondent, Dr. Kepha Mogere Ombacho. Key facts include:
- The term of the prior Council expired in September 2016, but the 3rd Respondent continued to manage the Council.
- Following the resignation of the Council Chairman in February 2017, the 3rd Respondent appointed Simon Kimani as Acting Chairman without proper authority.
- The 3rd Respondent failed to submit the Council's accounts for auditing since its establishment in 2013.
- The petitioner claimed the imposition of exorbitant examination fees without public participation and the irregular accreditation of Moi University.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the High Court, where the petitioner filed an amended petition on December 15, 2017. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed a preliminary objection challenging the court's jurisdiction, which was dismissed. The court then evaluated the merits of the petition, considering both parties' submissions and evidence.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court examined various constitutional provisions, including Articles 2, 10, 27, 47, and 73, which address the rule of law, public participation, and the responsibilities of public officers.
- Case Law: The court cited precedents that emphasize the necessity of procedural fairness and public participation in administrative actions, reinforcing the principle that any law inconsistent with the Constitution is void.
- Application: The court found that the 3rd Respondent had acted unlawfully by not submitting the Council's accounts, improperly appointing Mr. Kimani, and failing to adhere to public participation requirements when imposing fees. The court ruled that the actions taken by the 3rd Respondent were unconstitutional and void ab initio.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring several actions by the 3rd Respondent unconstitutional. It quashed the gazette notices and legal instruments related to the appointments and fees, emphasizing the need for adherence to constitutional provisions and public participation in governance.

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

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled that the actions of the 3rd Respondent regarding the management of the Public Health Officers and Technicians Council violated constitutional provisions. The court declared the appointments and fees imposed as invalid, emphasizing the importance of transparency, accountability, and public participation in administrative actions. This case underscores the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional rights and ensuring that public officers act within the bounds of the law.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Okiya-Omtatah-Okoiti-v-Cabinet-Secretary-Ministry-of-Health--Others-Case-Summary_2322_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries