Bor & 5 others v Kericho County Assembly & 4 others (Constitutional Petition E006 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2080 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kericho County Assembly unlawfully tried to remove six county officials without a hearing; only the County Public Service Board can remove Chief Officers.
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 recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee regarding the removal of the Petitioners from office were procedural and legally founded
- 2.What final remedies should be granted in relation to the unprocedural processes initiated by the Respondents
Key legal issues
#Whether the Ad Hoc Committee's removal recommendations were procedurally fair
The process was procedurally flawed: the Petitioners were not accorded a fair hearing before removal was recommended
The court, relying on its ruling of 8th February 2024, found that the Ad Hoc Committee recommended removal without according the Petitioners any right to be heard. Their appearance before the committee was for fact-finding on the fundraiser, not as a disciplinary hearing. A process commenced without due procedure cannot be allowed to proceed, and its recommendations are thereby invalidated.
Whether the Ad Hoc Committee and County Assembly had mandate to recommend removal of Chief Officers
They had no such mandate; only the County Public Service Board can remove Chief Officers under section 55 of the County Government Act
The court had earlier determined that Chief Officers are employees of the CPSB, removable only by the Board in exercise of its disciplinary mandate. Recommendations for their removal by an Ad Hoc Committee of the Assembly usurped the CPSB's mandate and could not stand.
What remedies flow from the violation
Declarations plus nominal damages of Kshs. 200,000 each, since the court's interim orders arrested the illegality and the Petitioners suffered no great damage
Although rights were violated, the conservatory orders issued on 8th February 2024 stopped the removal process, and the Petitioners remain in office. General or aggravated damages were therefore unwarranted; nominal damages suffice. The order does not bar the Respondents from initiating proper and procedural action in future.
Legal principles established
#- An administrative or quasi-judicial process that recommends removal of a public officer without affording a hearing violates Articles 47, 41 and 50 of the Constitution and cannot be allowed to proceed
- Chief Officers are employees of the County Public Service Board and can only be removed by the Board exercising its disciplinary mandate under section 55 of the County Government Act
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the 1st Respondent through the Ad Hoc Committee formed on 1st August 2023 violated the Petitioners' constitutional rights under Articles 47, 41 and 50 of the Constitution
- 2.Nominal damages of Kshs. 200,000 to each Petitioner
- 3.A declaration that Chief Officers can only be removed from office by the County Public Service Board under section 55 of the County Government Act
- 4.No order of costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution; sections 12(1) and (3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#General, aggravated and punitive damages of Kshs. 2,000,000 per petitioner
The illegality was arrested by the court's interim conservatory orders; petitioners remain in office and suffered no great damage
Costs of the Petition
The court declined to award costs
Costs
No order of costs - each party to bear their own costs
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.
It is indeed true that the 1st Respondent through the Ad hoc Committee formed on 1st August 2023 proceeded without fair procedure and so violated the Petitioners Constitutional rights under Articles 47, 41 and 50 of the Constitution.
I also determined that Chief Oficers are employees of the County Public Service Board (CPSB) and can only be removed from ofice by the said head exercising its disciplinary mandate under section 55 of the County Government Act.
It was therefore true that the recommendations for the removal of the Chief Oficer by an Adhoc Committee could not lie.
I will therefore find for the Petitioners and award them nominal damages of Kshs. 200,000 each since the illegality was arrested by this court and not allowed to proceed.
There will be no order of costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Petition date printed as '16th August, 202' (typo) and internal inconsistencies in figures: cash collected stated as 'Kshs. 13,6653,660' while Respondents state 'Kshs 13,682,660'
County Governments Act cited with conflicting chapter numbers in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bor & 5 others v Kericho County Assembly & 4 others (Constitutional Petition E006 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2080 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Petition of 16th August 2023 (filed 17th August 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2080/eng@2024-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.