A sign outside Nyeri Law Courts. A judge ruled that unethical conduct while off duty can cost you a public job.
A dispute lodged by a Danish alcohol distiller over alleged use of goons by security officers during an anti-illicit liquor crackdown has taken a new twist after court rejected a bid to lock the Attorney General out of the case.
Patiala Distillers Kenya Limited wanted court to block the Attorney General from participating in the civil case lodged against four police officers and two Ministry of Interior officials. The case involves the alleged destruction of liquor beverages by 'hired goons'.
The company is seeking punishment for the security officers, claiming that they worked with goons in seizing and destroying its products in February last year.
The alcoholic drinks were seized in Mathira constituency, Nyeri County, in February 2024 during a national crackdown on illicit brews.
Claiming the loss of the goods, the company identified four police officers involved in the crackdown and sued them in person, together with the acting County Commissioner, Rodgers Osundwa and Assistant sub-County Commissioner Rupare Ole Kinyai.
The police officers were named as Ephantus Kariuki, Daniel Munguti, Kiragu Kamau and Joseph King’ori.
It also opposed their representation by the Attorney-General in the court dispute, stating that “Attorney General has no business representing individuals”. It told the court that the officers were not carrying out their duties in good faith, hence they should carry on the legal fight individually.
Conflict
Justice Kizito Magare on Wednesday threw out the objection and ruled that it was unexpected that “those public officers sued in their official titles would be represented, while those sued in their individual names will be left out to dry”.
“The actions complained of were of public officers. There was no private action complained of. Indeed, the pleadings in this matter alleged that the goods were seized from secure premises by goons. It means that the actions were by public servants carrying out their duties as employees of the government. This is definitely what was envisaged in Article 154 of the Constitution,” said the judge.
He added that since the claim was against the national government and police service members, the AG could not be locked out even if the company chose to sue the public officials as individuals.
The judge said that suing them individually does not change the suit's character and that the “incompetence in pleadings cannot drive away public servants from the defence by the Attorney General”.
He held that the Attorney General was also mandated to represent the national interest in court proceedings.
'Not personal'
“The defendants are sued as national government officers carrying out their business as such. None of the actions was personal in nature. The jurisdiction invoked is over the subject matter. This was the seizure of alcohol and subsequent destruction. Though disguised as products, these were alcoholic drinks of the second generation,” said Justice Magare.
According to him, it was immaterial that the six officers were sued in their names as they must have been acting in their official capacity during the seizure of the alcoholic drinks, even where they acted in excess of their powers.
“There is no finding that the defendants did not perform their functions in good faith. The company’s pleading remains as such and must be proved. Indeed, filing a suit of quasi-criminal nature against individual public servants raises doubts about the plaintiff's aims. There is no material placed before me to show the merit of the application. The same is consequently dismissed,” said Justice Kizito.
He also penalized the company Sh15,000 to pay the six officials within 30 days.
“In this case the application was baseless and had no reason for being filed. The defendants will have costs of Sh15,000 payable within 30 days; in default, the plaint will stand struck out,” he ordered.
