Olwero v County Assembly of Siaya & another (Cause E040 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1797 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A former Siaya County Assembly Clerk lost his unfair termination case in Kisumu because he skipped his own disciplinary hearing and hid a self-processed loan in his assets declaration.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was a valid and fair reason to revoke the Claimant's appointment
- 2.Whether the Claimant was accorded a fair hearing before the Select Committee
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought in the amended claim
Key legal issues
#Whether there was valid and fair reason to revoke the Claimant's appointment
Yes - the Claimant concealed the loan in his assets declaration form and processed the loan to himself contrary to policy, justifying disciplinary action
The court found the Claimant susceptible to disciplinary action for misconduct: he concealed the loan by not declaring it in his assets declaration form and processed the loan to himself, contrary to the principle that no one should be a judge in their own cause. Although acknowledging the process could be a witch-hunt, the court held the misconduct was established and the Claimant failed to prove malice or improper motive, so the revocation stood.
Whether the Claimant was accorded a fair hearing before the Select Committee
Yes - he was given opportunity to appear physically, virtually or through counsel and declined
The court found the Claimant had a genuine opportunity to exonerate himself but declined to participate: he failed to appear physically, virtually, or through counsel for the hearing. His assertion of illness was unsupported by medical evidence. The court concluded he had consistently frustrated the disciplinary process and therefore the hearing was fair despite his absence.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
No - the entire claim was dismissed, but no costs were awarded against him in view of his suffering
Having found valid reason for the revocation and a fair hearing, the court dismissed the claims for reinstatement, twelve months' compensation, notice pay, withheld salary and allowances. Notwithstanding the dismissal, the court, acknowledging the suffering the Claimant had undergone since losing his position, exercised discretion to deny the Respondents costs against him.
Legal principles established
#- A litigant who does not prove malice and improper motive in an unfair termination claim fails in that claim
- An employee should not be a judge in their own cause, such as where he processes a loan to himself
- The scope of a Select Committee of the house's investigation has no prescribed procedure governing the depth or extent of its inquiry
Court orders
#- 1.The suit was dismissed
- 2.No costs awarded against the Claimant - each party to bear own costs as the court directed there would be no costs against the Claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over unfair termination claim (Employment Act; County Assembly Services Act invoked in submissions)
Relief refused
#Reinstatement to the position of Clerk of the County Assembly
Not practicable as the position had been filled; and the Claimant failed to prove the termination was unfair
Twelve months' gross salary compensation for unfair termination
Claim of unfair termination failed; Claimant did not prove malice or improper motive
Three months' salary in lieu of notice, withheld salary and allowances of Kshs. 11,378,000/- and staff welfare shares of Kshs. 102,000/-
Claim dismissed; suspension held lawful and Claimant found culpable of misconduct
Costs
No costs against the Claimant - 'for the suffering he has undergone since he lost his position at the County of Siaya, there will be no costs against him.' Orders accordingly.
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 would find he did not prove malice and improper motive in the case before me and therefore it suffers the fate of dismissal.
One ought not be a judge in their own cause.
The scope of the Respondents' Select Committee's investigation has no prescribed procedure that governs either the depth or extent of the Committee's inquiry.
for the suffering he has undergone since he lost his position at the County of Siaya, there will be no costs against him.
It was clear he did not wish to participate as the Claimant failed to appear physically, virtually, or through Counsel for the hearing.
Orders accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#Respondents and parties are referred to generically; the specific names and numbers of the 1st and 2nd Respondents are not identified in the judgment text provided
Case number and neutral citation not stated in the judgment text provided
Repayment figure appears inconsistently between pleadings (Kshs. 1,250,000/-) and submissions (Kshs. 1,200,000/-)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Olwero v County Assembly of Siaya & another (Cause E040 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1797 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1797/eng@2025-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.