Long battle by 42 magistrates heads to employment and labour relations court

22 February 2019 · Carmel Rickard

MORE than 40 former magistrates have taken another step in their fight against the Judicial Service Commission of Kenya. The magistrates have been contesting their 2003 dismissal, when they were “retired in the public interest”, a compulsory move made as part of “radical surgery” intended to deal with corruption in the judiciary at the time. They say they were wrongly dismissed and initially took their case to the high court’s constitutional division. But that court has now held that the 42 were indeed employed by the Judicial Service Commission and that their dispute should be heard by the employment and labour relations court. Charles Oyoo Kanyangi & 41 others v Judicial Service Commission of Kenya [2018] eKLR

THE case of the 42 magistrates is another long-running legal battle aimed at reversing some of the “radical surgery” performed on the Kenyan judiciary in the years from 2002.

That was the year in which tough steps were taken to root out corruption within the judicial sphere and a number of judges and other judicial officers were let go.

In their application to the high court’s constitutional division, the magistrates say that when the Judicial Service Commission of Kenya took the decision to get rid of them this “violated their constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms” and they asked for a declaration to this effect.

The JSC however contests the magistrates’ legal action, saying the high court’s constitutional division has no jurisdiction to hear the matter – and that the claim was brought too late.

Though counsel for the JSC said there could be no doubt that the dispute was an employment matter because the magistrates had been employed by the JSC, counsel for the applicants took a different approach, arguing that as their letters of employment were issued by the Public Service Commission, the JSC was not the employer.

Judge Chacha Mwita said the court could only hear a case if it had the jurisdiction to do so. Reviewing the plea of the former magistrates, he said they were judicial officers employed to serve as magistrates. He had read through the record and it was correct that they were appointed as magistrates who served “at various levels within the judiciary”.

In 2003, however, they were “retired by (the JSC) on public interest … during the radical surgery within the judiciary.” He said there was no doubt that the case they had brought was one involving employer and employee over termination of employment.

In 2010 “the people of Kenya adopted a constitution that significantly changed the judiciary’s way of conducting its affairs.” One way this changed was that three sets of courts of equal status would exercise separate jurisdiction. These were the High Court, the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) and the Environment and Land Court. All cases relating to disputes arising out of employment would be heard by the ELRC no matter what kind of dispute this might be.

The magistrates’ salaries were paid by the JSC according to their pay slips and there could be no doubt that they were indeed employees of the commission. This meant that the dispute related to termination of employment and whether the commission followed correct procedures in bringing their employment to an end.

Under the constitution, the high court had no jurisdiction to hear matters falling within the scope of the labour and land courts. Although the dispute raised issues to do with “violation of rights and fundamental freedoms” these rights and freedoms were in the nature of rights that accrued because of the employer-employee relationship.

In that regard, said Judge Mwita, the ELRC had jurisdiction to hear disputes that, even if they touched on human rights and fundamental freedoms, arose from the nature of the relationship between the parties.

He therefore ruled that the petition should be handled by the ELRC. However, he declined to strike out the pleadings, but said in his view the appropriate order to make was to refer the matter to the ELRC for hearing and determination.

Charles Oyoo Kanyangi & 41 others v Judicial Service Commission of Kenya [2018] eKLR

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.