Bernard Njiinu Njiraini v Clerk of the National Assembly & another; Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Industrialisation, Trade & Enterprise Development & 4 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
P. Nyamwea
Judgment Date
September 17, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the 2020 eKLR case summary of Bernard Njiinu Njiraini v Clerk of the National Assembly & others, analyzing key legal principles and outcomes from this impactful ruling on governance and enterprise development.

Case Brief: Bernard Njiinu Njiraini v Clerk of the National Assembly & another; Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Industrialisation, Trade & Enterprise Development & 4 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Bernard Njiinu Njiraini v. Clerk of the National Assembly & Others
- Case Number: Judicial Review Application No. E1102 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: 17th September 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): P. Nyamwea
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues in this case revolve around whether the recommendations made by the National Assembly’s Public Investments Committee (PIC) regarding the personal liability of the ex parte Applicant, Bernard Njiinu Njiraini, for the procurement process were lawful and reasonable. Specifically, the court must resolve whether the recommendations can be quashed and whether a prohibition can be issued against their implementation.

3. Facts of the Case:
Bernard Njiinu Njiraini, the Managing Director of the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS), is the ex parte Applicant. He contests the findings of the National Assembly’s Public Investments Committee Report dated 29th May 2020, which recommended that he be held personally liable for the procurement of international tender KEBS/T010/2019-2021 related to Pre-Export Verification of Conformity (PVoC) for used motor vehicles and equipment. The report alleged that he failed to seek the Attorney General’s opinion and provided misleading information. The Applicant filed a Chamber Summons seeking judicial review to quash the recommendations and to prohibit their implementation, claiming that he is being threatened with personal civil and criminal liability for actions taken in his official capacity.

4. Procedural History:
The ex parte Applicant filed an application on 14th September 2020, seeking urgent leave to institute judicial review proceedings. The application was certified urgent, and the court examined the merits of the request for leave to commence judicial review. The Applicant argued that the PIC’s report was unreasonable and that he had been cleared of any legal infringement by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) in a previous ruling. The court granted leave to apply for an order of Certiorari and Prohibition against the implementation of the report.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which states that leave must be sought and granted before applying for judicial review orders. The court also referenced principles from previous cases that outline the criteria for granting leave, including the necessity for an arguable case.
- Case Law: The court cited *Republic vs. County Council of Kwale & Another Ex Parte Kondo & 57 Others* and *Sharma vs. Brown Antoine* to emphasize that the threshold for granting leave is whether the applicant has an arguable case that warrants further consideration. These precedents establish that the court should not delve deeply into the merits of the case at this stage but should assess whether there is a realistic prospect of success.
- Application: The court found that the Applicant had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate an arguable case, including documentation from the PPARB and the impugned PIC Report. The court noted that the recommendations in the report could potentially lead to unjust outcomes for the Applicant if implemented. However, it determined that the request for a stay of the report's implementation was premature as no final decision had been made by the National Assembly at that time.

6. Conclusion:
The court granted the ex parte Applicant leave to apply for orders of Certiorari and Prohibition regarding the recommendations in the PIC report. However, it denied the request for a stay of implementation, stating that the final status of the report was uncertain and that the Applicant could challenge the recommendations during the substantive hearing.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this ruling.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled in favor of granting leave to Bernard Njiinu Njiraini to challenge the National Assembly’s Public Investments Committee Report. While the court recognized the urgency and potential implications of the recommendations, it refrained from issuing a stay on their implementation due to the lack of a final decision by the National Assembly. This case underscores the balance between accountability in public procurement and the protections afforded to public officers acting in their official capacities.

Citations:
- Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- Republic vs. County Council of Kwale & Another Ex Parte Kondo & 57 Others, Mombasa HCMCA No. 384 of 1996
- Sharma vs. Brown Antoine (2007) I WLR 780
- R (H) vs. Ashworth Special Hospital Authority (2003) 1 WLR 127
- Jared Benson Kangwana vs. Attorney General, Nairobi HCCC No. 446 of 1995
- Taib A. Taib vs. The Minister for Local Government & Others, Mombasa HCMISCA. No. 158 of 2006
- Republic vs. Cabinet Secretary for Transport & Infrastructure & 4 Others ex parte Kenya Country Bus Owners Association and 8 Others (2014) e KLR
- James Opiyo Wandayi vs Kenya National Assembly & 2 Others (2016) eKLR

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Bernard-Njiinu-Njiraini-v-Clerk-of-the-National-Assembly--another-Cabinet-Secretary-Ministry-of-Industrialisation-Trade--Enterprise-Development--4-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2400_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries