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

Republic v Kenya Vision 2030 Delivery Board & another Ex-parte Eng Judah Abekah [2015] KEHC 7078 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 7078 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
7078
Citation
[2015] KEHC 7078 (KLR)
Decided
26 February 2015
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureEx-parte Application for Mandamus
Holding

The Court held that the Commission had jurisdiction to investigate the Applicant's complaint and that its recommendations could be enforced by an order of mandamus.

Facts

The Applicant, Eng. Judah Abekah, was appointed as a Director by the Kenya Vision 2030 Delivery Board (Board) for three years. The Board refused to renew his contract, citing poor performance. The Applicant appealed to the Minister, who renewed the contract for one year, but the Board did not allow him to return to work. The Applicant then sought the Commission on Administrative Justice (Commission) for intervention.

Issues

  1. Did the Commission have jurisdiction to determine the matter?
  2. Can the Commission's recommendations be enforced by an order of mandamus?
  3. Who should bear the costs of the proceedings?

Reasoning

The Court determined that the Commission had jurisdiction to investigate the Applicant's complaint and that its recommendations could be enforced by an order of mandamus.

Outcome

The Court granted the ex-parte application for an order of mandamus compelling the Board to comply with the Commission's recommendations.

Orders

  • Order of mandamus compelling the Board to comply with the Commission's recommendations

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Commission on Administrative Justice Act
Cases cited (1)
  • THE MATTER OF THE PRINCIPLE OF GENDER REPRESENTATION IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND THE SENATE [2012] eKLR
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case