SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Judith Makokha v County Government of Kakamega & another [2014] KEELRC 1117 (KLR)

[2014] KEELRC 1117 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1117
Citation
[2014] KEELRC 1117 (KLR)
Decided
1 July 2014
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureRespondents opposed the application, claiming the claimant acted contrary to regulations and reinstated sacked staff to the payroll.CoramHellen Wasilwa
Holding

A mandatory injunction is issued restraining the respondents from continuing with the disciplinary proceedings against the claimant.

Facts

The claimant was surcharged and warned by the respondents for alleged misconduct when she was an employee of the defunct Malava Town Council. The respondents then rescinded their earlier decision and initiated a new disciplinary process.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant was subjected to a disciplinary process.
  2. Whether she appealed to the Public Service Commission Board.

Reasoning

The disciplinary process was skewed and the respondents' decision to rescind the surcharge and initiate a new process is prejudicial to the claimant.

Outcome

Claimant's application granted.

Orders

  • Pending the hearing and determination of this claim, a mandatory injunction do issue restraining the respondents from continuing with the disciplinary proceedings against the claimant and/or instituting any other disciplinary action and/or proceedings based on facts arising herein.

Remedies

  • Costs of this application will be in the cause.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • County Government Act 2012
  • Public Service Commission Regulation 2007
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case