Clare Chaddah Lwali v Director National Youth Service , Ministry of Public Service, Youth And Gender Affairs, Cabinet Secretary Public Service & Attorney General [2017] KEHC 2811 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  18 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO COMMENCE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 10, 27 47 AND 232 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT, 2015

AND

IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC OFFICERS ETHICS ACT, 2013

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW   REFORM ACT, CAP 28 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA

BETWEEN

CLARE CHADDAH LWALI ………………………………………..APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE …………1ST RESPONDENT

MINISTRY OF PUBLIC   SERVICE,

YOUTH AND GENDER AFFAIRS ……………………….….2ND RESPONDENT

CABINET SECRETARY PUBLIC SERVICE………….....…3RD RESPONDENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………………………….....4TH RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1. Vide a notice of motion  dated 20th January  2017 filed  pursuant  to leave  granted  on 19th January  2017, the  exparte  applicant Clare Chaddah Lwali seeks from this court  the following  orders  of Judicial  Review:

a. Certiorari to bring  into  the High Court  for the  purpose  for quashing  the decision  of the 1st  respondent ( Director  National Youth Service) made  on  9th November, 2016 determining that the applicant should vacate the  Government house  occupied  by her on or before  Friday 11th November, 2016;

b. Prohibition prohibiting the 1st respondent from issuing  directives of such a nature pending the hearing and  determination of the Anti- corruption case  No. 21 of  2016;

c. Any other relief that this Honourable court may deem just and expedient to grant.

d. Costs of the application be provided.

2. The notice of motion is predicated  upon the grounds set  out in the statutory statement filed on  17th January  2017, the verifying   affidavit of Clare Chaddah Lwali filed together with the application  for  leave on  17th January  2017.

3. The exparte  applicant’s  application is brought  under  Articles  10,27,47,232 of the Constitution,  Order  53 Rule 1(3) (4)  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules, 2010, Sections  8 and  9 of the  Law Reform  Act Cap  26  Laws  of Kenya.

4. The exparte  applicant’s case  as stipulated  in the statutory  statement  and  depositions  in her  verifying  affidavit  is that  she  has been  a workaholic  employee  of  the National Youth Service having  joined  the  institution in the  1990 thus bearing  the  personal number  90117863.

5. That as a result  of her hard work, determination  and  dedicated  service   to the Republic, she  received  several accolades  which include but  not  limited to her promotion  to the  high  echelons  of leadership of the service  as the Deputy Director General.

6. That todate she continues to work in her such capacity and she continues   to enjoy the privileges and benefits accruing from her office.

7. That  on or before  15th November  2016, she  was  arraigned  before  court to take  a plea  on allegations  of abuse of office.

8. That she received stern instructions from the Permanent Secretary advising her to join the Ministry as the advisor to the Cabinet Secretary Devolution.  On Matters related to National Youth Service.

9. That upon taking up the assignment she was verbally instructed to report back to her initial work station at the service.

10. That however, she has been back and forth with the intention of unprocedurally and unconstitutionally removing her from office.

11. That on  24th December  2016, the exparte  applicant   received  a letter dated 9th November 2016 commanding her to compulsorily  vacate  the government  house she  occupies  by virtue of her position in the service and as a government  employee  on or  before  11th  November, 2016.  That the  notice to  vacate  the house  has affected  her family emotionally, psychologically traumatized and left  her  apprehensive  of being rendered  homeless  and  destitute.

12. The  exparte  applicant  claims that  she  was never  accorded  an  opportunity to be heard  before being ordered to vacate  the   government  house, contrary to Article  47  of the Constitution  and  Section 4 and d 6  of the Fair Administrative  Action Act, 2015.

13. Further, that the respondent’s actions contravened  Section 9 of the Public Officers  Ethics Act which stipulate  that public  officers  are enjoined by Section  9 to  respect  the  rights  and freedoms  of any person under Part V of the Constitution.

14. It  was claimed that the action  by the respondent  flies  in the face  of the presumption of innocence; was  made in  bad faith  and  was devoid  of the requirement  for a hearing  and  notice to vacate  the  house in good time.

15. The notice of motion  was opposed by the respondents through the replying affidavit sworn by Richa Ndubai the Director  General of National Youth Service who deposes that the applicant  was  first appointed by National Youth Service  on 28th August  1990  as a training officer  and thereafter  deployed to the Ministry  of  Public Service, Youth  and Gender  Affairs   from 7th January  2016  as Liaison Officer  and  designated  as  Senior Deputy  Director, National Youth Service  and   allocated  the  suit premises which are located  within the National Youth Service Engineering  Institute, to enable her carry out her  duties  optimally as the commanding officer  who worked  beyond  normal or regular official  working hours.

16. That therefore having been deployed to the headquarters, the  exparte  applicant  ceased being  an employee  of the  National Youth Service  and consequently  she ceased  to enjoy  the benefits  of the continued  occupation of the National Youth Service  house and  a formal notice  to her to  vacate the house was issued d to her.

17. That subsequently the  1st respondent  made several  verbal  requests  to her to vacate the house  but she  ignored  prompting  the  1st respondent  to issue  her  with a final notice  dated  9th November  2016.

18. That the applicant’s  continued, occupation of the house  is negatively impacting on the capacity of the current commanding  officer to efficiently execute  his duties  as he is  forced  to  operate  from outside  the institution.

19. That therefore the exparte applicant’s application is misconceived and   an abuse of the court process, baseless, lacks merit and should therefore be dismissed with costs to the respondents.

20. The parties  advocates  did agree on 10th April  2017  to dispose of the notice of motion   by way  of written  submissions but  as at  29th May  2017, when the  matter  came  up for  highlighting of the  submissions, only the respondents  had filed  written  submissions.  The court  directed  parties to urge the matter  and the  applicant’s counsel Mr Omari therefore chose to make  oral submissions  while the  respondent  counsel  Ms Ngelechei adopted  her  written  submissions, urging  the court  to dismiss  the exparte  applicant’s  application with costs.

21. According to the exparte applicant, she was a Senior Deputy Director of National Youth Service. That the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission started investigating her on allegations of corruption at the National Youth Service.  She was later arraigned in court vide Ethic sand Anti-Corruption Commission case No. 21/2017.  By that time, she had been deployed to the Headquarters after Government reorganization of the office.

22. She   was then ordered to vacate the government house which she was occupying.  She asserts that she is still a civil servant under the Ministry of Public Service, Youth and Gender Affairs.

23. Further, that under the Public Service Code, once one is  charged in court, she retains  all her housing  and other  facilities  only that she gets  half salary  pending  the determination  of the criminal  case.  That she  has lived in the said  government house for  19  years  and  deserved  to be  treated as  innocent  until proved guilty.  That the Public Service Commission is her employer and that since it is her and not her family staying in the house, it is an abuse of Fair Administrative Action to urge her to vacate the house.

24. On the part of the respondents, reliance was placed on the written submissions filed on 6th April 2017.

25. According to the respondents, the applicant’s continued  occupation of the subject  house by the  applicant  which is solely reserved  for occupation by the institution’s commanding officer is negatively impacting  on the capacity  of the current  commanding officer to efficiently execute her duties  as the commanding  officers  duties  require that he or she  works  beyond the regular  working hours.

26. That  housing  provision is entailed  in the Public Service  Commission  Human Resource  Policies Manual for public service, 2016  and allocation of  government houses  is provided  under Section D, D1(2)  inter alia, that government  institutional  houses  shall be  allocated  at the station  where an  officer is  posted for  duty.

27. It  was submitted that in view of  the above  policy, the  respondent  did not  act illegally  or ultra vires  or in  bad faith  in asking   the  applicant   to vacate  the premises.

28. Reliance  was placed  on James  Obura  Obongo  vs Mombasa  County  Director  of Housing [2015] e KLR where the  court held  inter alia  that: it  would   amount to  denying  another  civil servant   stationed in Mombasa  an opportunity  to occupy  the  government  quarter  by allowing  the  applicant to continue   occupying  a government  quarter…….if the applicant  is interested in retaining his family  in Mombasa, he is at liberty  to source private  accommodation for the family to allow another  officer posted to Mombasa  station to occupy  that government quarter.”

29. The  court further  stated that : “there  was nothing  unreasonable or in defiance  of logic in code  of regulations  requiring  a civil servant  to vacate   a government quarter  in  one station  upon transfer to another  station.  That  it is both equitable  and  just that  no one civil servant  should  enjoy  both a right  to enhanced  house allowance  and  simultaneously  enjoy the privileges of occupying a government quarter, which is  allocated  on the basis  of being  stationed where the  civil servant  works.”

30. On unreasonableness, it  was  submitted that the applicant  had not  demonstrated that the respondents  violated any law by  being  given  a notice to  vacate a  house  and that there  is sufficient  evidence to show that  she had  been given  sufficient, notice to  vacate the premises  from 28th  June  2016   and the notice of  9th November  2016.  Reliance was placed on Japheth Ms Musee & Another v Attorney General & 2 Others [2012] e KLR where the court   held, inter alia, that:

“ Besides  the  applicants  have not  pointed  to any law  that supports  their claim that  supports  their claim   that the  3rd  respondent  was  not mandated  to issue them  with quit  notices  and that therefore  the notices  served  on them by the  3rd respondent  were  illegal.”

31. On the claim  of error  of material  facts, it  was  submitted  that the notice  to vacate the  house  had no bearing  on the  ongoing anti- corruption   court case  but purely  based on the fact that the applicant  was  no longer  serving  in the National Youth Service  Engineering  Institute as she  was  deployed to the Ministry Headquarters.

32. Further, that the notice is  predicated  on the fact  of the nature  of the work of commanding  officer  of the institution  and that Director  of National Youth Service  has no reason to act in bad  faith against  the  applicant.  The respondents urged the court to dismiss the application.

DETERMINATION

33.  I have  considered the  foregoing  and  in my humble view, the question  to be answered  in this matter is whether the  exparte  applicant  is  entitled  to the orders  sought.

34. It is not  in dispute that the exparte  applicant  is a  senior public servant  who served  as  a Senior Deputy  Director of  the  National Youth Service and who  was being  housed at the  place of work- National Youth Service  Engineering  Institute.  It is also not in dispute that she is still in the public service and was transferred to the headquarters.

35. It is further  not in dispute that she is  facing  a corruption charge   and  is on  half pay and   was therefore  upon transfer  to the Headquarters, replaced by another  officer commanding   the  institute   and  was by a  written notice of  9th November   2016  asked to vacate  the government  House by 11th November  2016  to enable  the  Commanding Officer to occupy it.  She  was  deployed as a Liaison  Officer  on matters of National Youth Service  reporting to the Cabinet Secretary  from  8th January 2016  vide  letter of   7th January  2016.  It  was   while she   was at the headquarters  that  she  was arraigned  in court on  allegations of abuse of office  which is  alleged to  have taken place on  26th September  2015  at the National Youth Service Headquarters at Ruaraka.

36. The applicant resists the notice to vacate the government house alleging impropriety, unreasonableness and bad faith and ultra vires.

37. On the part of the  respondents, they contend that the notice to vacate the government  house is made  in good faith  because is it a policy of the  Public Service Human Resource Manual on allocation of government quarters that one is allocated a government  quarter at the station where  an officer is posted  for  duty.

38. However the purported Human Resource Manual was never annexed to the respondent’s replying affidavit.  In addition, there is  no evidence  to show that  the officer  who was  send  to  replace  the  exparte  applicant  was  supposed  to occupy the house   that she is  occupying.  The notice   dated 9th November 2016 simply refers to several verbal communications on the vacation of government house and stating that:

“I have  been  instructed  by  the Director  General National  Youth  Service  to notify  you to  vacate  the house  on or before  Friday 11th November  2016  without fail.  Kindly comply.”

39. It is therefore pretentious on the part of the respondents   to claim that   the purpose of the notice   was to allow another officer   to occupy the house.  There was no evidence of prior oral notices to her to vacate the house.  There  was also s no evidence  that from  8th January  2016   when  she  was expected  to report to the  headquarter, the exparte  applicant  was also  expected  to vacate  her house  to give way for the  incoming  officer  and if that  was so, nothing prevented the respondents  from  saying so.

40. In addition, albeit  the  case  of James  Obura (supra) was  relied  on by the  respondents, that case can be distinguished  from the facts of this case  in that in the  former case, the  officer  had been  transferred  from Mombasa, to Malindi and he left   the  station  but retained  his family  in the government  house  and  was  resisting  to move  out  his family  to allow another  officer to occupy  it.  That is  the reason  why the  learned  judge ( Emukule J(as  he then  was),  was  categorical  that “ it  would amount  to denying   another civil  servant  stationed  in Mombasa  an opportunity   to occupy  the government  quarter  by allowing  the applicant  to continue   occupying a government quarter…….If the  applicant  is interested  in retaining  his family  in Mombasa, he is  at liberty to source  private  accommodation  for the family  to allow another officer  posted  to Mombasa  station to occupy  that  government  quarter.”

41. In the instant case, there is  no allegation that the applicant  has been  transferred  from the station  but has  retained  her family  in the  government  quarter.

42. There is  also no allegation  and evidence  that she is   benefiting  twice from the housing  policy  that is, that she is  being  paid  a house  allowance  while at the same  time, she is  stuck  in the government  house  thereby  earning  a double  benefit.

43. The respondents did not annex any housing policy for the Commanding Officer of the institute to live in the institute’s house, which is a stone’s throw away from the Headquarters.

44. It is for  that reason  that I find  the notice of  two days  to vacate   the  government house unreasonably short as  the  exparte  applicant could not be expected to source an alternative  housing in Nairobi within  2 days  of the notice to vacate the government  quarter  and no reasonable  public officer  would  be  expected  to give such  a notice to another  senior serving public officer to  vacate a government house.

45. Article 43(b) of the Constitution of Kenya guarantees every person the right to accessible and adequate housing and to reasonable standards of sanitation.  It would  therefore be  a  violation  of the  exparte applicants fundamental  human right to  adequate  housing for  her to be  ordered  to vacate  a government  house within   2 days  without proof of available alternative  housing or  house allowance.  Two days’ notice is   with utmost respect, not adequate or even sufficient notice.  It is unreasonable notice and it is for that reason that this court must intervene to protect the exparte applicant’s right to adequate housing and to unreasonable notice and threatened eviction which will render her without alternative accommodation and public embarrassment in violation of her inherent right to dignity.

46. This is  not to say that the  exparte  applicant  cannot vacate  the house   or be issued  with notice  to vacate the house  which she  occupied  by virtue  of her  employment  and  duties as the  Commanding Officer  of the institute.

47. Furthermore, albeit  it is alleged that  the continued  occupation of the subject  house us  negatively  impacting  on the capacity  if the current  commanding  officer to  effectively  execute  her duties  and that he (sic) is   forced  to operate to and from  outside   the  institute, the said commanding  officer  is not  disclosed  and neither  has he/she  sworn  any affidavit  to show how   operating  to and from outside  the institute  and  (where) exactly, is affecting  efficient  execution of duties as  aforesaid.

48. Albeit  it is claimed   that the law  which the applicant  alleges   was breached  by the notice  was not  disclosed, in my  humble view, it is the  exparte applicant’s rights to  adequate  housing  and to fair administrative action that are  affected  by the  2 days  notice which  I find  unreasonable, and   going  by the decision  in James  Obura  ( supra),  it is clear  that the  applicant herein, unlike  the applicant in the James Obura case, has not  been transferred  out of Nairobi station.  The  transfer   was  only  as far as  offices and  work were concerned, unlike  in the James  Obura case where the  applicant  was transferred out  of Mombasa  and  wanted his family to remain in the government  house.

49. Even  Section L5  of the Civil  Servants  Regulations referred  to in the Obura  case stated:“Government Quarters are allocated  at the station  where the  officer is  posted for  duty.”  As to whether  the  ‘ station’ referred  to is one  and  the same  thing as  the  institute  premises  is not clear  since the Regulations  were not placed  before this  court for  perusal and understanding  of the  interpretation of the word ‘station’.

50. In the  James Obura  case, the applicant  had been  posted to  Malindi  from Mombasa  which is not  the  same  as  this case  where  the applicant  was  deployed from the institute which is within Nairobi, the Headquarters  which is still in Nairobi.

51. Whereas  I do not find that  a  notice to  vacate  government  quarter upon  transfer  is unreasonable  within the Wednesbury’s  principles, the only unreasonableness  that I find  defies logic in this case is to give  a notice of  2 days  to vacate  premises  which a  Senior civil servant  working  within the  same  locality  ( Nairobi)  can be  given which in my view  is outrageous  and  morally  unacceptable, especially in the  absence  of any evidence that the occupant was earning housing  allowance and  was simultaneously  occupying  a government  house which  ought to be  occupied by another officer.

52. For the above reasons, I find  and hold that the exparte applicant’s motion  is merited.  I grant prayer  No.1 and issue  certiorari  bringing  into this  court  for the purpose  of quashing  and  I  hereby quash  the  decision  of the  1st  respondent, National  Youth Service  communicated vide letter dated  9th November  2016  determining  that the applicant  should  vacate the government  house  occupied  by her  on or before  Friday 11th November, 2016.

53.  Having  quashed  the  decision of  the  1st  respondent, there remains  nothing to be  prohibited  as I have  found that there is  nothing illegal in issuing  a  reasonable  notice to vacate  the  premises, having  regard  to the circumstances  of the case.  Moreso, as there  is no evidence  linking  the notice  to vacate  the premises  and  Anti-Corruption case No. 21/2016, I find   no merit  in the prayer  for  prohibition.

54. Accordingly, I decline to grant judicial review order of  prohibition I order that each party  shall bear  their own  of these  Judicial Review  proceedings  for leave  and  the main motion.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 17th Day of October, 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

Judgment delivered as scheduled in open court in the absence of parties or their legal counsels and in the presence of  Court Assistant:  Marylyn