Henry Nyabuto Ondieko v Charles Apudo Owelle, Attorney General (Sued on Behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock & Fisheries) & Chairman of the Board Chemelil Sugar Company Limited [2017] KEHC 2544 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU

PETITION NO. 25 OF 2016

BETWEEN

HENRY NYABUTO ONDIEKO ….………..……..………………………………..… PETITIONER

AND

CHARLES APUDO OWELLE ……………...…...........................................… 1ST RESPONDENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL (SUED ON BEHALF OF THE

CABINET SECRETARY, MINISTRY  OF

AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK & FISHERIES) ……..….….……………….. 2ND RESPONDENT

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD CHEMELIL

SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED …………………………………………..…. 3RD RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The application before the court is the Notice of Motion dated 7th June 2017.  It seeks a review of my judgment principally under the provisions of Order 45rule 2of theCivil Procedure Rulesandsection 80 of theCivil Procedure Act.

2. The grounds are that following the judgment, the 2nd respondent through the Permanent Secretary proceeded to suspend the 1st respondent from his position as Managing Director of Chemelil Sugar Company Limited. The petitioner contended that this action undermined the decision of this court as the State Corporations Advisory Committee was to act on a request by the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries and signify its decision within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of the judgment for the Minister to act and give his approval for the appointment of the 1st respondent in terms of section 5(3) of the State Corporations Act.

3. The applicant submitted that even after the suspension, the 1st respondent had now been sacked through the instigation of the Principal Secretary. Assuming that in fact the 1st respondent has been sacked, then this application will serve no purpose as the relief is grounded on the 1st respondent’s appointment as Managing Director. In other words, there would be no basis for the Principal Secretary to consult the SCAC as the office holder is no longer in office.

4. Although the material placed before the court constitutes new and important matters for the court to consider as a basis for review, for the reasons I have stated I decline to review the judgment. The application is dismissed but with no order as to costs.

DATED and DELIVERED at KISUMU this 1st day of November 2017.

D.S. MAJANJA

JUDGE

Petitioner in person.

Mr Ayuko instructed by Amos O. Ayuko and Company Advocates for the 1st and 3rd respondent.