Kisumu Employment Labour and Relations Court has revoked the appointment of the Kisii County Attorney.
Justice Stephen Radido ruled that since the office of the County Attorney is established under the Office of the County Attorney Act, there was no valid or legal requirement for the County Public Service Board (CPSB) to establish the office.
The Judge found the process leading to the appointment of Alfred Ongiri Nyandieka as the County Attorney, failed to adhere to sections 5(1) and 8(a) of the Public Appointments (County Assemblies Approval) Act.
"The Court therefore makes a declaration that the appointment of the Ongiri as the County Attorney was procedurally non-compliant with the provisions of sections 5(1) and 8(a) of the Public Appointments (County Assemblies Approval) Act. An order is hereby issued to quash the appointment of the interested party," he ruled.
Vincent Mariita Omao and David Mangondi appeared as the petitioners while Governor Simba Arati and four others appeared as respondents.
The embattled County Attorney appeared as an interested party.
The petitioners in challenging the appointment of Ongiri, contended that the governor unlawfully gazetted and issued an appointment letter to the interested party as the County Attorney on or around November 30, 2022.
The petitioners contended that the appointment was not preceded by a public advertisement as envisaged by Articles 159(2)(e), 232(1)(g), and (2)(a) of the constitution.
The appointment they said was also against section 17(2)(e) of the Public Service (Values and Principles) Act, 2015, section 37 of the Public Service Commission Act, 2017 and sections 4, 5, 6(2),(3) and (4) of the Public Appointments (County Assemblies Approval) Act.
Omao and Mangondi also opposed Ongiri's appointment on grounds that the vetting contemplated by section 7 of the Public Appointments (County Assemblies Approval) Act was not conducted by the County Assembly.
"The appointment of the County Attorney was contrary to the requirements of the County Governments Act and the Office of the County Attorney Act, 2020. Despite seeking information appertaining to the appointment of Ongiri, the governor had declined to furnish us with the information," the petitioners said.
The respondents argued that the petitioners had misapprehended its processes and work and that Ongiri had been nominated by the governor and the nomination was taken through all the processes contemplated by the Standing Orders and sections five and six of the Office of the County Attorney Act and sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Pubic Appointments (County Assemblies Approval) Act.
The County Attorney contended that the petition was in bad faith since his appointment was in tandem with all the set procedures, qualifications and the law.
The respondents submitted that the clerk caused to be published in the dailies on November 17, 2022 a notice inviting comments from the public and vetting was set for November 25, 2022.
The further said that the clerk confirmed that Ongiri appeared for the vetting, was vetted, and a report submitted to the County Assembly.
"The County Assembly adopted the report on November 29, 2022, wherein the Speaker informed the governor of the approval, leading to the gazettement and appointment," the respondents argued.
Further, the respondents argued that there is no requirement for a competitive appointment of a County Attorney under the Office of the County Attorney Act, 2020.
