Republic v Speaker of the Nairobi County Assembly & 4 others Ex parte Maurice Otieno Gari [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
P. Nyamwea
Judgment Date
September 04, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Republic v Speaker of the Nairobi County Assembly & 4 others Ex parte Maurice Otieno Gari [2020] eKLR. Discover key legal insights and implications from this landmark judgment.

Case Brief: Republic v Speaker of the Nairobi County Assembly & 4 others Ex parte Maurice Otieno Gari [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Republic v. The Speaker of the Nairobi County Assembly & Others
- Case Number: Judicial Review Application No. MISC. E033 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: 4th September 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): P. Nyamwea
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues presented before the court include whether the 1st Respondent acted within the law when appointing the 5th Respondent to the Nairobi City County Assembly Service Board and removing the ex parte Applicant from the same position. Specifically, the court must determine if the actions complied with the provisions of the County Government Act and the relevant political party regulations.

3. Facts of the Case:
The ex parte Applicant, Hon. Mamaurice Otieno Gari, filed an application seeking judicial review orders against the Nairobi County Assembly's decision to appoint Hon. Catherine Akoth as a member of the Nairobi City County Assembly Service Board and to remove him from the Board. The 1st Respondent, the Speaker of the Nairobi County Assembly, published a Gazette Notice on 26th August 2020, which announced this decision. The ex parte Applicant was appointed to the Board on 18th October 2019 and represented the Orange Democratic Party. The 1st Respondent's decision was purportedly based on a letter from the Orange Democratic Party, which claimed to make changes in minority leadership contrary to the provisions of the County Government Act.

4. Procedural History:
The ex parte Applicant filed a Chamber Summons on 4th September 2020, seeking leave to apply for orders of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition regarding the actions of the 1st Respondent. The application was supported by a statutory statement and a verifying affidavit. The court reviewed the application and determined that the matter required an inter partes hearing before any orders could be granted. The court directed that the Respondents be served with the application and granted them 21 days to respond. The hearing was scheduled for 12th October 2020, with provisions for electronic filing and service due to COVID-19 precautions.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the provisions of the County Government Act, particularly Section 12, which outlines the composition and appointment of members to the county assembly service boards. It also referenced the Political Parties Act concerning internal party disputes and the constitutional provisions regarding jurisdiction.
- Case Law: The court did not cite specific previous cases in the provided content, but it implied reliance on the interpretation of statutory provisions and the resolution of political party disputes, suggesting that precedent in similar judicial review cases may have informed its considerations.
- Application: The court reasoned that the actions of the 1st Respondent were potentially in violation of the statutory framework governing the appointments and removals from the County Assembly Service Board. The reliance on a party letter for leadership changes raised questions about the legality of the decision, necessitating a full hearing to address the merits of the application.

6. Conclusion:
The court's ruling on 4th September 2020 directed that the ex parte Applicant serve the Respondents and allowed them to respond to the application. The court emphasized the need for a fair hearing before any judicial review orders could be issued. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in political appointments and the need for transparency in governance.

7. Dissent:
There is no dissenting opinion noted in the ruling, as the decision was procedural in nature, focusing on the necessity of a hearing rather than the substantive issues at hand.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya's ruling in Republic v. The Speaker of the Nairobi County Assembly & Others involves a judicial review application concerning the appointment and removal of members of the Nairobi City County Assembly Service Board. The court mandated an inter partes hearing to ensure due process, highlighting the significance of compliance with statutory provisions in political appointments. This case illustrates the judicial system's role in overseeing adherence to legal frameworks within governmental structures.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Republic-v-Speaker-of-the-Nairobi-County-Assembly--4-others-Ex-parte-Maurice-Otieno-Gari-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2413_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries