Court Orders Governor to Pay Lawyer Sh2.4m for Revoking County Job Offer
Tana River Governor Dhadho Godhana has been instructed by the court to compensate his former legal advisor with a sum of 2.4 million Kenyan Shillings as restitution. This ruling stems from the court’s determination that Governor Godhana had engaged in discriminatory practices against the advisor during the hiring process for the County Attorney role.
Justice Monica Mbaru from the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Malindi additionally directed the Tana River County Assembly and its Clerk, Mr. Abdullahi Hussein, to collectively cover the expenses owed to Mr. Isaiah Ndisi Munje, who filed the petition.
This comes after the court’s acknowledgment that both the Assembly and its Clerk confessed to disobeying court orders.
The court observed that Mr. Godhana, who began the process of appointing Mr. Munje as County Attorney, did not complete the recruitment by the County Attorney Act.
Justice Mbaru determined that issuing a letter of appointment directly and subsequently failing to finalize the recruitment process significantly disadvantaged Mr. Munje, resulting in other third parties being favored as preferred candidates.
“This is defined under the Employment Act, 2007 as being discriminatory against the potential or prospective employee such as the petitioner became as of October 10, 2022,” ruled Justice Mbaru.
ALSO READ:
- How not to make a mistake when choosing the best bookmaker in Kenya
- Understanding Gatwiri’s Cause of Death: Unraveling Positional Asphyxiation
- KRA Rules Out Tax Relief on SHIF Deductions
- Understanding Why Married Women Cheat: Common Reasons Behind Infidelity
- Violence Erupts in Mozambique: Three Killed, 66 Injured in Protests Over Disputed Election
She added: “The court finds the discrimination against the petitioner was not justified. It placed him at a great disadvantage and eventually lost other opportunities for possible employment yet he held onto his letter of appointment by the second respondent (Governor).”
The court observed that even though the petitioner’s appointment as County Attorney by Mr. Godhana didn’t adhere to the requirements outlined in the County Attorney Act, as there was no notice provided to the County Assembly for vetting and approval, the Governor, being aware of this, still issued him a letter of appointment on October 10, 2022.
It was also observed that the petitioner did not receive the letter revoking the appointment, dated November 1, 2022, until after filing the petition.
Justice Mbaru observed that the Governor, in their capacity as the individual accountable for the security of Tana River County, has been utilizing the assistance of Mr. Munje from August 9, 2022, up to the time the petition was submitted.
She observed that the Governor’s letter, appointing the petitioner as County Attorney, provided a valid basis for the petitioner to anticipate that he was the preferred candidate for the position.
“The duty to place the name of the petitioner before the County Assembly for vetting is vested in the second respondent (Governor),” said Justice Mbaru adding that the Governor, instead issued a letter recommending another person leaving the petitioner hanging on his letter.
The court observed that the petitioner bore some responsibility because he initiated legal action after the respondents halted and then withdrew his salary with the assurance that it would be restored.
ALSO READ: Governor Kihika Caught in Ksh116M Suspicious Payments Made to Private Lawyers
“Up until this petition, he claims that his salary from July 2022 to date has not been paid, a diligent and skilled employee must secure new opportunities particularly where he is seeking constructive dismissal,” said Justice Mbaru.
Mr. Munje informed the court that he was designated as County Attorney by the Governor under the Office of County Attorney Act. However, his nomination lacked approval from the County Assembly, as the Governor neglected to submit his name for vetting.
He contended that he applied for the County Attorney position, made it to the shortlist, and ultimately received an appointment by the Governor for the role.
The County Assembly along with its Clerk informed the court that the petitioner failed to transition into the role of County Attorney. They argued that even if the Governor’s appointment was valid according to the Public Appointment of County Officer Act, the correct procedure was not adhered to.
They contended that his name ought to have been submitted to the Assembly for review, with the notification issued by the Clerk, a procedure that didn’t occur.
The Governor and the county administration informed the court that the individual in question was not serving as County Attorney as claimed, and they clarified that there was no transition to that role.
They informed the court that for the Governor to appoint a County Attorney, the candidate must undergo vetting by the Assembly, a step that the petitioner did not undergo in this process.
Court Orders Governor to Pay Lawyer Sh2.4m for Revoking County Job Offer
