Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedJudicial Review Application (Chamber Summons dated 6th December 2021)

Republic v Speaker, County Assembly of Busia & 2 others Ex parte Miriam Wakaya Obura & another [2021] KEELRC 92 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
21 December 2021
2,246 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court refused to block Busia County Assembly's rejection of two board nominees because they were public officers, barred by law from the appointment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicants, two nominees to the Busia County Public Service Board, sought by Chamber Summons dated 6th December 2021 that leave to apply for judicial review operate as a stay of the decision of the County Assembly of Busia in sitting No. 129 of 1st December 2021 rejecting their nominations, and of the Speaker's ruling barring resubmission of their names. The Respondents opposed. The court held it had jurisdiction notwithstanding section 10 of the County Assemblies Powers and Privileges Act, since it may question an Assembly decision that offends the Constitution, but heeded the Supreme Court's caution in the Wambora case against interfering with other arms of government. On the merits, the Hansard showed the nominees were heard by the Assembly Committee on Appointments and the plenary debated their qualification, they having admitted they were public officers, which disqualifies them under section 58(13)(b) of the County Government Act 2012. The Speaker's direction for fresh nominations was supported by section 58(A)(10) of the County Government (Amendment) Act 2020. As the decision-making process was complete upon communication to the Governor, a stay would not be efficacious, and no prima facie basis for the discretion was established. Standing Order 65 relied on by the Applicants was found irrelevant. The application for leave to operate as stay was disallowed, with costs in the cause. Judgment delivered at Bungoma on 21st December 2021 by J. W. Keli, Judge.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant the order of stay despite the County Assemblies Powers and Privileges Act
  2. 2.Whether there is anything to stay, given the state of the decision-making process
  3. 3.Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant leave to operate as stay on a prima facie basis

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction to stay a decision of a County Assembly

Holding

The court has jurisdiction notwithstanding the ouster in the County Assemblies Powers and Privileges Act, but must be restrained in the face of legislative processes per the Supreme Court's guidance in the Wambora case

Reasoning

The court noted section 10 of the County Assemblies Powers and Privileges Act ousts questioning of Assembly proceedings, but held the Constitution as supreme law permits review where the Assembly breaches it. It relied on the Supreme Court advisory opinion that courts assert constitutional supremacy while remaining averse to internal parliamentary procedures. It also cited the Supreme Court's caution against rushing to issue conservatory orders against other arms of government.

p. 3
02

Whether there is a decision capable of being stayed

Holding

No - the Assembly's decision was complete and communicated to the Governor, so a stay would serve no purpose

Reasoning

The Hansard showed the nominees appeared before and were heard by the Assembly Committee on Appointments, whose report was considered by the plenary. The decision to reject was final upon the Speaker's communication of 2nd December 2021 requesting fresh nominations. Since the process would begin afresh with new names, a stay would be ineffectual.

p. 3
03

Whether the Applicants established a prima facie case for the discretionary stay

Holding

They did not; the Respondents discharged their mandate legally and there was no constitutional violation

Reasoning

The Hansard showed debate occurred on the nominees' qualification as public officers, whom the Applicants admitted to being. Section 58(13)(b) of the County Government Act 2012 disqualifies public officers from board membership. The Speaker's ruling directing fresh nominations was supported by Section 58(A)(10) of the County Government (Amendment) Act 2020. The relied-upon Standing Order 65 was found irrelevant.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Proceedings or decisions of a County Assembly acting in accordance with the County Assemblies Powers and Privileges Act cannot be questioned in court, but the court may still intervene where a decision offends the Constitution
  • Where the County Assembly rejects a nominee, the Speaker must communicate the rejection to the Governor within five days and request fresh nominations from the shortlisted persons
  • A person is not qualified for appointment to a County Public Service Board if they are a state or public officer

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for leave granted on 8th December 2021 to operate as stay of the decision and ruling of the 1st and 2nd Respondents rejecting the Applicants' nominations and barring resubmission of their names is disallowed
  2. 2.Costs in the cause

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 22, 23, 165(6) & (7) of the Constitution; Section 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act; Order 53 Rule 1(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010

Relief refused

#

Stay of the decision and ruling of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in County Assembly sitting No. 129 of 1st December 2021 rejecting the Applicants' nominations and barring resubmission of their names

The decision-making process was complete when the Speaker communicated the rejection to the Governor, so a stay would not be efficacious; and on the merits the Assembly acted lawfully, the Applicants being public officers disqualified under Section 58(13)(b) of the County Government Act 2012

p. 3

Costs

Costs in the cause.

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

Consequently I disallow the application for leave granted to the Applicants on the 8 th December, 2021 to operate as stay of the decision and ruling of the 1 st & 2nd Respondents rejecting the Applicant’s nominations to the Busia County Public Service Board and barring the applicants names from being resubmitted
p. 4Final orders - refusal of stay
However, the court can still question the decision of Assembly if it offends the Constitution of Kenya as the Supreme law of the Land
p. 3Jurisdiction over County Assembly decisions
the decision making process having been complete when the Speaker communicated the Assembly decision to the Governor the order of stay then would not be efficacious
p. 3Efficacy of stay where decision is complete
a person shall be qualified to be appointed as a member under subsection (1) of County Public Service Board if that person is not a state or Public Officer
p. 3Disqualification of public officers from County Public Service Board

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Judgment inconsistently cites the County Government (Amendment) Act - as 'County Government amendments Act 20220' in one passage and correctly as 'County Government( Amendment) ) Act No. 11 of 2020' in another

minor

Judgment refers to Articles 22, 23, 262 and 165 of the Constitution as the basis of jurisdiction, but the court itself notes Article 262 is irrelevant, and Article 263 (intended?) is not clarified

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Speaker, County Assembly of Busia & 2 others Ex parte Miriam Wakaya Obura & another [2021] KEELRC 92 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Judicial Review Application (Chamber Summons dated 6th December 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/92/eng@2021-12-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.