Mike Sonko Mbuvi Gidion Kioko v Clerk, Nairobi City County Assembly & 4 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya
Judgment Date
October 23, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Discover the case summary of Mike Sonko Mbuvi Gidion Kioko v Clerk, Nairobi City County Assembly & 4 others [2020] eKLR. Explore key legal insights and implications from this important judgment.

Case Summary: Mike Sonko Mbuvi Gidion Kioko v Clerk, Nairobi City County Assembly & 4 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Hon. Mike Sonko Mbuvi Gidion Kioko v. The Clerk, Nairobi City County Assembly & Others
- Case Number: Petition No. 35 of 2020
- Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
- Date Delivered: 23rd October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues presented before the court include:
1. Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to hear a petition concerning the impeachment of a Governor.
2. Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the petitioner and the respondents, which would allow the court to exercise its jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act.

3. Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, Hon. Mike Sonko, the Governor of Nairobi City County, filed a petition challenging impeachment proceedings initiated against him by the Nairobi City County Assembly. The impeachment was purportedly based on Article 181 of the Constitution and Section 33 of the County Government Act. The respondents included the Clerk and Speaker of the Nairobi City County Assembly, as well as the Nairobi City County Assembly itself. The petitioner argued that the impeachment process threatened his constitutional rights and sought the court's intervention to halt the proceedings.

4. Procedural History:
The petitioner lodged his application on 28th February 2020, and the court issued interim orders to halt the impeachment proceedings pending a hearing. The 2nd respondent raised a preliminary objection asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship. The court directed that this preliminary objection be heard first before addressing the substantive issues raised in the petition. Subsequent submissions were filed by both parties, with the respondents insisting on the lack of jurisdiction while the petitioner argued for the court's authority to intervene.

5. Analysis:
Rules:
The court examined the relevant statutes, including Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, which delineate the court's jurisdiction to handle disputes arising from employment and labor relations.

Case Law:
The court referred to several precedents, including:
- Re The Matter of Interim Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission [2011] eKLR: This case emphasized that jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be assumed.
- Samuel Kamau Macharia v. Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & Others [2012] eKLR: This case reiterated that courts can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by law.
- Richard Bwogo Birir v. Narok County Government & Others [2014] eKLR and Shadrack Wangómbe Mubea v. County Government of Nyeri & Another [2015] eKLR: These cases established that public officers, including Governors, are employees under the Employment Act, 2007.

Application:
The court found that the petitioner, as a Governor, is an employee of the state and thus falls within the definition of an employee under the Employment Act. The court emphasized that the impeachment process constitutes a disciplinary action, which is a matter within its jurisdiction. The court concluded that it had the authority to intervene in the impeachment proceedings to ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory provisions.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the 2nd respondent, affirming its jurisdiction to hear the petition. The court ordered the continuation of interim orders halting the impeachment process and directed that the matter be expedited for hearing. This ruling underscored the court's role in protecting the rights of public officers against unconstitutional actions.

7. Dissent:
No dissenting opinions were noted in this case as the ruling was unanimous in affirming the court's jurisdiction.

8. Summary:
The Employment and Labour Relations Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Hon. Mike Sonko, allowing the court to hear his petition against the impeachment proceedings initiated by the Nairobi City County Assembly. The court affirmed that it has jurisdiction over disputes involving public officers and emphasized the importance of judicial oversight in ensuring that constitutional processes are followed. This case highlights the judiciary's role in maintaining the rule of law and protecting the rights of public servants in Kenya.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Mike-Sonko-Mbuvi-Gidion-Kioko-v-Clerk-Nairobi-City-County-Assembly--4-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2332_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries