Catright v Public Service Commission; Principal Secretary State Department for Lands and Physical Planning (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Application E040 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 459 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld the Public Service Commission's power to discipline staff directly despite delegation, and confirmed the dismissal of an officer who went absent without explanation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether it was unprocedural or unlawful for the respondent to undertake disciplinary proceedings against the applicant by itself notwithstanding the delegation to the Authorized Officer of the interested party
- 2.Whether the applicant was denied fair administrative action, fair hearing and the right to appeal in the disciplinary process culminating in his dismissal
- 3.Whether the applicant's dismissal was valid, fair and justified on the allegations of absence from duty
- 4.Whether the cited Bill of Rights provisions were violated
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent could discipline the applicant despite delegation to the interested party's Authorized Officer
Yes; the delegation did not divest the Commission of its powers and the respondent was entitled to conduct the disciplinary proceedings itself.
Section 31(3)(b) of the PSC Act provides delegation does not divest the Commission of responsibility. Regulation 5(2) of the PSC Regulations allows the Commission to take corrective measures on its own motion or upon appeal or review. Article 234(2)(b) vests disciplinary control in the Commission, section 65(1) of the PSC Act vests disciplinary power in it, and clause 27 of the delegation instrument reserves the Commission's Article 234 powers. No prejudice or manifest injustice was shown.
Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing and fair administrative action
No; the applicant was accorded a fair process and his allegations of procedural unfairness were unfounded.
The applicant was issued notices to show cause, responded to them, appeared before the Discipline Committee, made submissions which were considered, and was informed of his right of appeal. He never requested to cross-examine officers present. He offered no answer to the allegations of absence from duty on the merits, and the Court found he fully contributed to his dismissal, making the grievances and claimed rights violations unjustified.
Whether the dismissal for absence from duty was valid and fair
Yes; the reason for dismissal was valid and the applicant was the author of his own predicament.
In ELRC Petition No. E127 of 2023 (Mwaure J, judgment dated 21.12.2023) it was found that the applicant disobeyed a lawful order to report to his new station and his whereabouts were unclear from June 2022 to March 2023. Despite several notices to show cause he failed to explain his whereabouts. In these proceedings he made no attempt to answer the allegations on the merits, so the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.
Legal principles established
#- A delegation by the Public Service Commission does not divest the Commission of responsibility for the exercise of delegated powers, and the Commission may take corrective measures or exercise its disciplinary powers notwithstanding the delegation.
Court orders
#- 1.The application (notice of motion dated 07.08.2024) is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the proceedings
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53 rule 1(1)(2) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 8(2) of the Law Reform Act; inherent power and jurisdiction of the Court
Relief refused
#Order of certiorari quashing the dismissal decision dated 04.07.2024
The Court found the respondent had jurisdiction to conduct the disciplinary process itself and that no prejudice or manifest injustice was shown
Declarations of violation of fair hearing, fair administrative action and other Bill of Rights provisions
The applicant was culpable, offered no exculpating evidence and the grievances were found unjustified
Order of mandamus reinstating the applicant as Chief Land Registration Officer
The dismissal was found valid and fair, so reinstatement could not issue
Payment of unpaid salaries, dues, benefits and allowances
The application was dismissed; the interested party stated salary and allowances were paid in September 2024
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the proceedings
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.
In conclusion the application is hereby dismissed and each party to bear own costs of proceedings.
Procedural unfairness based upon that allegation for the applicant is unfounded.
the reason for the dismissal being valid as existing and fair as relating to his misconduct, the applicant was the sole author of his predicament
The Court finds that the respondent was entitled to proceed as was done.
section 31(3) (b) of the Public Service Commission Act, 2017 provides that a delegation by the Commission shall not divest the Commission of the responsibility concerning the exercise of the powers or performance of the duty delegated
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records inconsistent dates for the show cause letter that commenced the respondent's disciplinary process in the same paragraph
The replying affidavit refers to a show cause letter dated 06.06.2023 while elsewhere stating the applicant had eight months to respond to 'the show cause issued on 06.06.2024', an apparent misdated reference
The case title of the parties is not stated in the judgment text; only role descriptions (ex-parte applicant, respondent, interested party) appear
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Catright v Public Service Commission; Principal Secretary State Department for Lands and Physical Planning (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Application E040 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 459 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review (Notice of Motion dated 07.08.2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/459/eng@2025-02-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.