High Court nullifies Ruto's appointment at Poisons Board

However, Justice Mwita said the court set aside the negligence finding based on a procedural issue, not facts of what transpired.

“The petitioner has demonstrated that the first respondent did not show that his integrity and suitability were above reproach. The fact that the board’s decision was set aside did not, in my respectful view, clear the first respondent from the issue of negligence he had faced. That would also mean that the first respondent’s integrity was not necessarily cleared,” said Mwita.

In his application, lawyer Apollo Mboya argued that Githinji had been convicted by the KMPDC for gross negligence that resulted in the death of a patient. He said the doctor was fined Sh27,000.

At the same time, the court heard that the family of the deceased also sued separately and the High Court awarded Sh1.05 million in  general damages for negligence on May 29, 2019. 

Mboya stated that President Ruto did not inquire about Githinji’s integrity, competence and suitability as a public officer before the appointment on January 20 last year.

The lawyer asserted that the appointment placed Githinji in charge of the agency that regulates the practice of pharmacy, manufacture and trade in drugs and poisons, including eliminating unqualified individuals from the pharmaceutical field thus, safeguarding the integrity of the profession and protecting the public from potential harm.

“It is contradictory that as chairperson of the interested party, the petitioner has been convicted for gross negligence resulting in the death of a patient
as well as masquerading as a medical practitioner,” argued the petitioner.

On the other hand, Githinji stated that he challenged the decision by KMPDC in High Court Judicial Review Application in 2009. According to him, the court quashed it, hence, there was no case to peg on the negligence claim.

He argued that the case filed by the family was about compensation and not his suitability. 

“The court did not investigate and determine my professional suitability. There is a distinction between professional negligence and professional misconduct,” argued Githinji.

He stated that the High Court lacked the power to entertain the case as the issues of appointment could only be resolved by an Employment and Labour Relations Court.

The AG also took the same position that the case was not a constitutional issue but an employment one.