Republic v County Public Service Board Kiambu & 8 others; Nene (Exparte) (Judicial Review Application E046 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 723 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that interdicting a county employee without a prior hearing is lawful, since interdiction is only a preliminary disciplinary step.
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 applicant established grounds for judicial review justifying certiorari to quash the interdiction and withholding of salary
- 2.Whether the special audit report of the 7th respondent should be quashed for failure to adhere to internal audit procedures
- 3.Whether the applicant was entitled to notice and hearing prior to interdiction
- 4.Whether the disciplinary process was being conducted unlawfully or was predetermined
Key legal issues
#Whether the interdiction without prior hearing on the special audit report violated fair hearing rights
No - interdiction with notice to show cause is a preliminary step; the applicant was given opportunity to respond and the disciplinary process is ongoing
The court found interdiction to be a preliminary step facilitating full disciplinary process, not a final decision. The applicant was issued a notice to show cause, requested information by memo and responded on merits. No law, regulation or policy breached was demonstrated. Requiring a hearing before interdiction was misconceived.
Whether judicial review relief was warranted
No - applicant failed to establish grounds for judicial review; adequate statutory remedies under the County Governments Act exist
The court held that the applicant did not show any provision of law, regulation, policy or practice breached. Sections 75 and 77 of the County Governments Act offer remedies, including appeal to the Public Service Commission, making judicial review unnecessary.
Legal principles established
#- Interdiction is a preliminary step to facilitate a full disciplinary process and does not require prior notice and hearing before the interdiction and notice to show cause
- Section 77 of the County Governments Act provides an appeal avenue to the Public Service Commission for a county public officer affected by disciplinary decisions
Court orders
#- 1.The application for judicial review dated 07.10.2024 is dismissed
- 2.The respondents' application dated 03.09.2024 seeking dismissal of the applicant's case is also not decided/dismissed as unnecessary
- 3.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
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over employment-related decisions
Relief refused
#Certiorari to quash the interdiction and withholding of salary
No provision of law, regulation, policy or practice breached in the interdiction; judicial review grounds not established
Certiorari quashing the special audit report
Audit and disciplinary process underway and not shown to be unlawful
Mandamus and prohibition orders compelling resumption of duties and restraining further action
Interdiction was a preliminary step in a continuing disciplinary process; adequate statutory avenues exist
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.
Accordingly, the application is amenable to dismissal. The parties are in continuing employment relationship, the disciplinary case is pending, and, each will bear own costs of the proceedings.
In conclusion the application for judicial review dated 07.102024 and for dismissal of the matter dated 03.09.2024 are both hereby dismissed and each party to bear own costs.
the applicant has failed to establish any of the grounds for judicial review that would justify the making of the orders as prayed for
Issues in the judgment
#Date formatting inconsistent - '07.102024' missing a full stop
Audit loss figure stated inconsistently as Kshs.13,556,354.00 and Kshs.13,556,364.00 in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v County Public Service Board Kiambu & 8 others; Nene (Exparte) (Judicial Review Application E046 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 723 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 07.10.2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/723/eng@2025-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.