Republic v Tharaka Nithi County Public Service Board & another; Nicholas (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2053 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found the Public Service Commission wrongly delayed an employment appeal for over three years, but refused to undo the dismissal because too much time had passed.
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 prayer for certiorari is untenable due to limitation period
- 2.Whether the prayer for reinstatement is bad in law by the dint of section 90 of the Employment Act
- 3.Whether the applicant's motion has merits
- 4.Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Timeliness of the certiorari prayer
Leave was sought within six months of the PSC decision, so certiorari was tenable
Order 53 rule 2 limits leave applications for certiorari to six months. The PSC decision was delivered on 21st February 2024 and communicated on 26th February 2024; the applicant filed his chamber summons for leave on 21st May 2024, within the six-month window, so the limitation objection by the 2nd respondent failed.
Grounds for reviewing the PSC decision
The PSC decision was lawful and rational but tainted with procedural impropriety due to a delay of over three and a half years in determining the applicant's appeal
The PSC acted within its constitutional and statutory mandate and its decision was reasoned. However, the appeal lodged on 25th June 2020 against the redeployment was only determined on 21st February 2024, long after the applicant had been dismissed, breaching Article 47's guarantee of expeditious, efficient administrative action. That delay was a valid review ground.
Entitlement to discretionary relief notwithstanding a proven ground
Even where a review ground is established, the court may refuse the prerogative orders where they would serve no practical purpose
The court found procedural impropriety but refused certiorari as vain; mandamus for reinstatement and payment was refused for lack of jurisdiction and improper invocation of section 89 of the PSC Act; prohibition was refused as the decision had already been made. Discretionary remedies will not issue where they would amount to vanity.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review of administrative decisions lies only for illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety
- Unreasonable delay in deciding an internal appeal violates the right to fair administrative action under Article 47
- Certiorari must be sought within six months under Order 53 rule 2
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 24th May 2024 is dismissed to the extent highlighted in the judgment
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the applicant because the suit succeeded partially
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 23 and 47 of the Constitution; Order 53 Civil Procedure Rules (judicial review); ELRC Act
Relief refused
#Certiorari quashing the PSC decision dated 21st February 2024 to the extent it upheld termination
Although the decision was tainted with procedural impropriety, quashing it would be in vain given the lapse of time
Mandamus compelling reinstatement as Director Supply Chain Management
Section 12(3)(vii) ELRC Act bars reinstatement after 3 years; termination was grounded on valid reason with fair procedure; reinstatement not practicable
Mandamus compelling payment of the 12 months' salary compensation awarded by the PSC within 14 days
Section 89 of the PSC Act provides the enforcement procedure through the ELRC, which was not properly invoked
Prohibition against implementation of the termination decision
Prohibition is forward-looking; the PSC had already upheld the dismissal, so the order would be vain
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the applicant because the suit has succeeded partially
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.
Consequently, I dismiss the Notice of Motion dated 24th May 2024 to the extent highlighted above but award costs of the suit to the applicant because the suit has succeeded partially.
In view of the foregoing matters, I find and hold that the applicant has demonstrated that the impugned decision by the PSC is tainted with procedural impropriety, which amounts to valid ground upon which this court can review the decision.
Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, eficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
Prohibition does not look into the past but it is forward looking. It only operates to prevent someone from making a decision or implementing the decision.
under section 12[3] [vii] of ELRC Act the court has no jurisdiction to order reinstatement after the lapse of 3 years from the date of termination
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the dismissal letter is dated 22nd February 2021 in one passage and 24th February 2021 in others, and elsewhere refers to a decision of 21st February 2021
Inconsistent dates for the PSC decision: variously 21st February 2024 and 24th February 2024
Leave granted on 22nd May 2024 but the Notice of Motion is dated 24th May 2025, an apparent typographical error
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Tharaka Nithi County Public Service Board & another; Nicholas (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2053 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 24th May 2024 (Judicial Review proceedings). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2053/eng@2025-07-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.