OKONG'O V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOTHER

JUDGMENT

The appellant had sued the Attorney-General, representing the Minister of Labour, claiming that although he had been interdicted and finally dismissed from his post as Labour Inspector Grade II, he had never been reinstated. He prayed for an order of reinstatement or alternatively the payment of his full terminal benefits. What had caused the refusal to reinstate the appellant, was, the fact that the appellant had been convicted of the theft of Kshs 540 and placed on probation for two years. In January, 1981, the Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Labour recommended that the appellant be reinstated. But the interdiction continued until he was dismissed with effect from November 21 1980, with the loss of all terminal benefits. The Attorney-General admitted all these facts, but contended that the Minister was justified in his refusal to reinstate the appellant.

The learned judge in the High Court agreed with the Minister. He construed section 9(1) of the Probation of Offenders…