Nekesa v County Assembly of Bungoma & 5 others (Judicial Review 1 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1604 (KLR) (29 June 2023) (Judgment)
- Court
- Employment & Labour Relations Court
- Case number
- 1604
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 1604 (KLR)
- Decided
- 29 June 2023
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureEx parte application for judicial reviewCoramJW KELI
Holding
The court found that the decision by the respondents was illegal, utravires, and unfair.
Facts
The applicant, Rachel Rael Nekesa, was an employee of the County Assembly of Bungoma. She was stopped from receiving her salary and other emoluments and barred from participating in the activities of the County Assembly. She filed an ex parte application seeking various reliefs.
Issues
- Whether the decision by the respondents on the exparte applicant was illegal, utravires and/or unfair.
- Whether the orders sought by the exparte applicant of judicial review were available.
Reasoning
The court found that the decision to stop the applicant's salary and other emoluments, and to bar her from participating in the activities of the County Assembly, was illegal, utravires, and unfair.
Outcome
Judgment in favor of the applicant.
Orders
- An order of certiorari to remove into the High Court for purposes of it being quashed the decision for the 1st respondent as communicated through the 4th respondent, to stop the salary and other emoluments and further barring the claimant from participating in the activities of the 2nd respondent.
- An order of prohibition to prohibit the 2nd respondent from interfering with the exparte applicant’s tenure of office, execution of her duties towards the 2nd Respondent’s and public, to stop her salary, emoluments and other benefits and further to prohibit any declaration of the applicant’s position vacant for recruitment of another person.
- An order of mandamus to compel the 1st to the 4th respondents to unconditionally reinstate the applicant to her position as member of the 2nd respondent without the alternation, change and or otherwise limiting the terms of membership in a manner that may impact negatively on the applicant’s membership as a result of the claims leveled against the applicant in respect to all issues that led to the stoppage of her benefits and membership of the 2nd respondent.
- An order of permanent injunction, barring any decision by the 5th respondent to declare the applicant’s position vacant for recruitment of another person.
Remedies
- Removal of the decision into the High Court for quashing.
- Prohibition of interference with the applicant's tenure of office.
- Compulsion to reinstate the applicant to her position.
- Permanent injunction against declaring the applicant's position vacant.
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.
Loading judgment…