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

Dixon Otieno Odongo & another v Board of Management, Kenya Marine & Fisheries Research Institute [2018] KEHC 6822 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 6822 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
6822
Citation
[2018] KEHC 6822 (KLR)
Decided
3 May 2018
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureApplication for leave to apply for judicial review proceedings for orders of certiorari and mandamusCoramE. K. O. OGOLA
Holding

The motion has merit and is allowed as prayed.

Facts

The ex parte Applicants were suspended by the Respondent on November 1, 2017, for carrying out a tender process. They seek to have the suspension quashed and to be re-admitted to their positions.

Issues

  1. Procedural fairness in the suspension of public servants
  2. Compliance with the Public Service Commission's Discipline Manual and the Kenya Marine & Fisheries Research Institute's Terms and Conditions of Service

Reasoning

The court found the Respondent's actions to be procedurally unfair and in violation of several constitutional and statutory provisions.

Outcome

The motion is allowed.

Orders

  • An order of certiorari removing the suspension and quashing the proceedings
  • An order of mandamus compelling the Respondent to unconditionally re-admit the Applicants to their positions with full remuneration

Remedies

  • Costs of the application to be provided for

Authorities cited

Legislation (5)
  • Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21, Laws of Kenya
  • Public Service Commission Act, 2012
  • Public Service Commission of Kenya Discipline Manual, 2008
  • Kenya Marine & Fisheries Research Institute Terms and Conditions of Service for Management Staff, 2012
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