Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission official Henry Morara Ongwenyi with his lawyer Harun Ndubi outside Employment and Labour Relations on October 20, 2015.
Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission’s Chief executive officer Halakhe Waqo and Michael Mubea failed to turn up in court has ordered instead they send senior lawyers to represent them.
The two had been ordered to appear in court to show cause action should not be taken against them for disobeying a court order requiring the reinstatement its former employee.

Their team of lawyers, senior Counsel Paul Muite, Ahmednasir Abdullahi and Ochieng Oduol, told the that the two were out of the country.

The court fixed the matter be heard on Friday next when the two have returned back to the country.

Employment and Labour Relations presiding judge Justice Mathew Nduma Nderi had issued orders after he was informed that the two officers of EACC have not complied with judgment of the court dated August 19.

The judge ordered them to appear in court on October 30 to explain why they have not reinstated Mr Henry Morara Ongwenyi to his position as education officer 1.

Mr Ongwenyi through lawyers Harun Ndubi and Kwame Nkruma, told the court that the two officers have totally ignored the orders of the court and the only avenue available is to punish them.

Lady Justice Maureen Onyango had found and held that the dismissal of Mr Ongwe nyi was unlawful and can not be compensated by way of damages.
The judge had given the commission 14 days to comply with the court’s orders, by reinstating him to his position which he held in 2014 when the commission purported to terminate his employment

The dismissal of the petitioner by EACC was unfair and both substantively for failure to give reasons for termination of his employment” the judge said.

The court found that EACC had colluded the office of the director of criminal investigations by using state machinery to intimidate the petitioner who had applied for the position of deputy director.

The judge said damages provided for under the employment Act for loss of employment would not adequately compensate the petitioner for the tribulation he was subjected, saying that restatements must be accompanied with his benefits

During the hearing of the petition his lawyers told the court that petitioner was employed by the commission on 6th March 2006 as education officer on renewable fixed term contract.

The lawyers told the trial judge that in 18 May 2014 anonymous persons sent emails making allegations of impunity, corruption, incompetence and general impropriety against several officials of the commission.

The said allegations were sent through an email which management of the commission purported to have come from the petitioner.

They submitted that the summary dismissal was unconstitutional, illegal and malicious and was actuated by a personal vendetta perpetuated by two former commissioners.

The court found the allegations against the petitioner lacking evidence and facts to warrant the dismissal of the petitioners.