Rotich v County Public Service Board, Narok County & 3 others; Koech & 7 others (Interested Parties) (Petition E022 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1980 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Narok County's swap of ward administrators was declared illegal because each ward can only have one administrator, and the original four got their jobs back.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the subsequent appointment of the 5th to 8th Interested Parties as ward administrators while the 1st to 4th Interested Parties still held the offices was legal
- 2.Whether the former ward administrators were discriminated against
- 3.Whether the Petitioner should be granted the reliefs sought in the petition dated 11th October, 2023
Key legal issues
#Legality of appointing new ward administrators while incumbents still held office
The subsequent appointments were illegal, invalid and void as they contravened section 51 of the County Government Act which envisages one ward administrator per ward
The court found from Exhibit SKR 1 that the 1st to 4th Interested Parties were appointed in 2014 on permanent and pensionable terms and confirmed and promoted. In July 2023 the 5th to 8th Interested Parties were deployed as Ward Administrators while the original holders still served in the same wards. This violated section 51 of the County Government Act, which establishes one ward administrator per ward, rendering the subsequent appointments unlawful.
Whether redeployment of the former ward administrators was procedurally fair
The redeployment without consultation and without justification by exigencies of duty breached section 10(5) of the Employment Act
Section 10(5) of the Employment Act requires the employer, in consultation with the employee, to revise the contract to reflect any change and notify the employee in writing. There was no indication the 1st to 4th Interested Parties were consulted before the redeployment and change of title, nor that the redeployment was necessitated by exigencies of duty.
Whether the process complied with Article 232 values and principles of public service
The swap of ward administrators lacked transparency and consultation, offending Article 232
Article 232 prescribes values and principles of public service including accountability for administrative acts, transparency and provision of timely, accurate information, and fair competition and merit as the basis of appointments. The court found no indication of what informed the redeployment and swap, hence no transparency and no consultation, making the process unconstitutional.
Legal principles established
#- There can only be one ward administrator per ward under section 51 of the County Government Act; appointing a new ward administrator while the incumbent still holds office is an illegality
- Redeployment of an employee requires consultation with the employee and written notification of any change in contractual terms under section 10(5) of the Employment Act
- Public service appointments and redeployments must observe the values and principles of public service under Article 232, including transparency, accountability and consultation
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the subsequent appointment of Kipkoech Koros (Ololmasani Ward), Kiplangat Biwott (Kapsasiani Ward), Joseph Bett (Ilkerin Ward) and Benerd Rono (Mogondo Ward) as ward administrators is illegal, invalid and void
- 2.An Order quashing the appointment of Kipkoech Koros (Ololmasani Ward), Kiplangat Biwott (Kapsasiani Ward), Joseph Bett (Ilkerin Ward) and Benerd Rono (Mogondo Ward) as ward administrators
- 3.The 1st to 4th Interested Parties be reinstated to their position as Ward Administrators
- 4.Costs of the Petition to be borne by the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 165(3)(d)(i) & (ii) and Article 169(1) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Damages for unlawful removal of the petitioner from service
Not granted in the final orders; the court instead ordered reinstatement of the former ward administrators
Costs
Costs of the Petition to be borne by the Respondent.
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.
I will therefore find the petition merited and allow it and make the following finding:
A declaration that the subsequent appointment of Kipkoech Koros (Ololmasani Ward), Kiplangat Biwott (Kapsasiani Ward), Joseph Bett (Ilkerin Ward) and Benerd Rono (Mogondo Ward) as ward administrators is illegal, invalid and void.
An Order is issued to quash the Appointment of Kipkoech Koros (Ololmasani Ward), Kiplangat Biwott (Kapsasiani Ward), Joseph Bett (Ilkerin Ward) and Benerd Rono (Mogondo Ward) as ward administrators.
The 1st to 4th Interested Parties be reinstated to their position as Ward Administrators.
The whole process smacks of an illegality which this court cannot be seen to condone.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the court name or petition number in the text; the coram names 'Lady Justice Hellen Wasilwa' but only the presence of 'Muli for Claimant' suggests the ELRC
The Respondent's affidavit states the new ward administrators were 'removed from their positions and deployed' while the Petition describes them as newly appointed, an apparent inconsistency in the descriptions of the 5th to 8th Interested Parties' entry into office
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rotich v County Public Service Board, Narok County & 3 others; Koech & 7 others (Interested Parties) (Petition E022 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1980 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Petition dated 11th October, 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1980/eng@2024-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.