Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal 20 of 2018· [2022] KECA 575 (KLR)

Ngetich & 3 others v County Service Board Bomet & another

Court of Appeal
28 April 2022
5,611 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~22 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that fixed-term county employees cannot claim permanent jobs through 'legitimate expectation' when their hiring bypassed the County Public Service Board.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellants, four former community and area administrators of Bomet County, appealed against the dismissal by the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho (Njagi Marete, J) of their claim for declarations that their intended termination was unlawful, confirmation letters, or compensation equivalent to 25 years' salary. They had been appointed on one-year fixed-term contracts by the County Government's Human Resources Department, with renewals effected by the Office of the County Secretary, and sued the County Public Service Board Bomet and its Chairman. The Court of Appeal framed five issues and, as a first appellate court, re-assessed the evidence. It held that the Board alone has statutory power under section 59(1)(b) of the County Governments Act, 2012 to appoint persons to county public service offices, and that any delegation must be in writing under section 86(1). No written delegation was proved; the recruitment and renewals were therefore irregular and contrary to statute, and the court found no fault with the trial judge's conclusion that the engagements were void for contravening statute. The court then delivered an extended exposition of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, drawing on Indian, English, Australian and Kenyan authorities, holding that the doctrine belongs to administrative and constitutional law, is not a legal right, and cannot be transplanted into contract or employment law. Fixed-term contracts carry no expectation of renewal absent an express promise or established practice, and irregular employment cannot ground such an expectation. The appeal was dismissed, the trial judgment upheld, and each party ordered to bear its own costs. The court also noted non-joinder of the true employer, the County Government of Bomet.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the appellants were lawfully employed by the 1st respondent

Holding

They were not. Appointments were made by the County Government of Bomet's HR Department and renewals by the County Secretary, neither of which is the Board, and no written delegation under section 86(1) was proved.

Reasoning

The Board alone has statutory power under section 59(1)(b) to appoint persons to county public service offices. The record showed appointments by the County Government's Human Resources Department and renewals by the Office of the County Secretary, neither of which is an organ of the Board. Section 86(1) permits delegation only in writing to a specific person or office, and no such delegation was on record. The recruitment and renewals were therefore irregular and contrary to statute.

02

Whether the appellants had a legitimate expectation of permanent employment

Holding

No. Fixed-term contracts carry no expectation of renewal absent an express promise or established practice, and irregular employment cannot found such an expectation.

Reasoning

The court traced the doctrine through Indian, English, Australian and Kenyan authorities, holding that legitimate expectation is a creature of administrative law, not a legal right, and has no place in contractual engagements. Since the appellants' employment was itself irregular and contrary to statute, its invalidity could not ground an expectation of continued service, and there was no promise or regular practice of conversion to permanent terms.

p. 8
03

Whether the appellants had a sustainable cause of action against the respondents

Holding

No, both for non-joinder of the true employer and for want of any right of claim against the respondents.

Reasoning

The recruitment and renewals were acts of the County Government of Bomet, which was not joined as a party to the trial suit. The appellants ought to have joined the county government or the County Secretary. Independently, they had no right of claim against the Board or its Chairman because neither had any hand in their recruitment or renewal.

Legal principles established

#
  • Appointment of persons to county public service offices is the statutory preserve of the County Public Service Board under section 59(1)(b) of the County Governments Act, and recruitment by any other body requires written delegation under section 86(1).
  • Fixed-term contracts carry no legitimate expectation of renewal or conversion to permanent employment absent an express promise or established practice.
  • The doctrine of legitimate expectation belongs to administrative and constitutional law and cannot be transplanted wholesale into contract or employment law.
  • On a first appeal the Court of Appeal must re-assess the evidence and reach its own conclusions.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appellants' appeal be and is hereby dismissed
  2. 2.The judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho (D. K. Njagi Marete, J) delivered on 15th December 2017 in ELRC Cause No. 46 of 2017 be and is hereby upheld
  3. 3.Each party bears their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • County Governments Act, 2012section 59(1)
  • County Governments Act, 2012section 63(1)
  • County Governments Act, 2012section 74
  • County Governments Act, 2012section 86(1)
  • Employment Act
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 10 and 232

Cases cited (14)

  • Arthi Highway Developers Limited v West End Butchery Limited and 6 others
    [2015] eKLR

    Duty of a first appellate court to re-assess evidence and reach its own conclusions

  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co.
    [1968] EA p.123

    Appeal by way of retrial; appellate court not bound by trial judge's findings of fact

  • Alfarus Muli v Lucy M Lavuta & Another
    [1997] eKLR

    Circumstances in which an appellate court interferes with findings of fact

  • George S. Onyango vs. Board of Directors of Numerical Machining Complex Limited and 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR

    Fixed-term contracts carry no expectation of renewal

  • Teresa Karlo Omondi vs. Transparency International Kenya
    [2017] eKLR

    No legitimate expectation of renewal absent express promise or regular practice

  • Arvind Thapliyal
    2006 (8) SCJ p.721

    Definition and nature of legitimate expectation

  • Jitendra Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Others
    2012 (78) ACC 70

    Legitimate expectation is grounded in right and rule of law, distinct from desire or hope

  • National Buildings Construction Corporation vs. S. Raghunathan & Others
    AIR 1998 SC 2779

    Genesis of legitimate expectation in administrative law

  • Republic vs. Attorney-General and Another Ex Parte Waswa and 2 others
    [2005] 1 KLR p.280

    Legitimate expectation doctrine

  • Sehmidt vs. Secretary of Home Affairs
    (1969) 1 All ER p.904

    Lord Denning's obiter tracing legitimate expectation in common law

  • M/S. Sethi Auto Service Station vs. Delhi Development Authority & Others
    AIR 2009 SC p.904

    Protection of legitimate expectations at root of rule of law; Council of Civil Service Unions as locus classicus

  • Food Corporation of India vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries
    (1993) 1 SC p.71

    Legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in fair decision-making

  • Republic vs. Kenya Revenue Authority, Ex Parte Shake Distributors Limited
    [2012] eKLR

    Circumstances in which a legitimate expectation arises

  • Attorney General for New South Wales vs. Quinn
    [1990] HCA 21, 170 CLR 1

    Caution against drifting on 'a featureless sea of pragmatism'

On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho
E.L.R.C Case No. 46 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the Employment and Labour Relations Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ngetich & 3 others v County Service Board Bomet & another", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Appeal 20 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/575/eng@2022-04-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.