Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Health, Public Health Officers and Technicians Council, Kepha Mogere Ombacho & Attorney General Case Summary

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): J. A. Makau
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving several legal issues, including:
1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the petition.
2. Whether the actions of the 3rd Respondent violated constitutional provisions regarding financial accountability and governance.
3. Whether the appointment of Mr. Simon Kimani as Acting Chairman of the Public Health Officers and Technicians Council was unconstitutional.
4. Whether the 3rd Respondent acted unlawfully in awarding consultancy services without competitive bidding.
5. The validity of various legal notices and gazette notices related to the appointments and fees imposed by the Council.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Petitioner, Okiya Omtatah Okoiti, alleged that the 3rd Respondent, Dr. Kepha Mogere Ombacho, mismanaged the affairs of the Public Health Officers and Technicians Council (PHOTC) of Kenya, particularly through illegal appointments and financial mismanagement. The term of the last Council expired in September 2016, but the 3rd Respondent continued to run its affairs unconstitutionally. The Petitioner claimed that Mr. Simon Kimani was appointed Acting Chairman in violation of the law, creating a conflict of interest. Additionally, the Petitioner contended that the Council had not submitted its accounts to the Auditor General since 2013, and that exorbitant fees for examinations were imposed without public consultation.

4. Procedural History:
The Petitioner filed an amended petition on December 15, 2017, seeking various declarations and orders against the Respondents. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents responded with a preliminary objection, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction and that the petition was scandalous and frivolous. The court dismissed the preliminary objection and proceeded to hear the merits of the case.

5. Analysis:
Rules:
The court considered several constitutional provisions, including Articles 2, 10, 47, 73, 75, 201, 226(3), and 229(4)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, which pertain to governance, accountability, and the rights of individuals to fair administrative action.

Case Law:
The court referenced previous cases that established the principle that public bodies must act within their legal authority and adhere to constitutional provisions. The court emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in public finance, as seen in Republic v. Kenya National Examination Council.

Application:
The court found that the 3rd Respondent had failed to submit the Council's accounts to the Auditor General, violating the constitutional provisions. The appointment of Mr. Simon Kimani was deemed unconstitutional as it was made without proper authority and created a conflict of interest. The court also ruled that the legal notices and gazette notices were invalid due to the lack of public participation and compliance with statutory requirements.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, declaring several actions of the 3rd Respondent unconstitutional and invalid. The court ordered the quashing of the gazette notices and legal notices related to the Council's appointments and fees, emphasizing the need for adherence to constitutional principles in public 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 in managing the Public Health Officers and Technicians Council were unconstitutional. The court's decision highlighted the importance of accountability, public participation, and adherence to legal processes in the governance of public institutions. The ruling has significant implications for the management of public health governance in Kenya, reinforcing the need for transparency and lawful conduct by public officials.