Zachary Onsongo v National Police Service Commission & another [2015] KEELRC 367 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to a police official's retirement because the applicant had no personal stake and attached no actual decision.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Standing of the Applicant in employment and labour relations matters
The Applicant lacked standing; he did not move the Court as required under section 22 of the Industrial Court Act or Article 22 of the Constitution and showed no nexus to the decision
The dispute underlying the application concerned the retirement on age grounds of Ms Grace Kaindi, an employment matter in which only specified parties under section 22 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act may approach the Court. The Applicant described himself merely as the ex parte applicant without disclosing any interest or connection to the decision. Judicial review was also an unsuitable forum since viva voce evidence would be required.
Requirement to attach the decision sought to be quashed
The failure to attach the alleged decision of the President was a fatal omission; the letters attached were those of the Inspector General and the NPSC Chairperson, not the President
A party opting for judicial review must attach the decision challenged so the Court can assess it with certainty. Orders cannot issue against a fluid, unspecified decision, which would be unenforceable. The Applicant attached letters signed by Joseph K Boinnet and Johnstone Kavuludi addressed to Grace Kaindi, none of whom were parties, and made no reference to any presidential decision.
Legal principles established
#- A person alleging infringement of rights or fundamental freedoms under the Bill of Rights must nonetheless show their own interest and nexus to the decision challenged; 'every person' standing does not dispense with demonstration of interest
- A decision sought to be quashed by certiorari must exist and be attached to the judicial review application
- Judicial review is a discretionary remedy granted only where it serves some useful purpose
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objections raised by the 2nd Respondent are upheld
- 2.The application by the ex parte Applicant is rendered fatally defective and fails
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules; section 22 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (Industrial Court Act); Article 22 of the Constitution
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.
- Republic (Ex parte Applicant) v The First Respondent (through its Chief Licensing Officer)[2019] KEHC 10921 (KLR)17 Jan 2019distinguished
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Zachary Onsongo v National Police Service Commission & another [2015] KEELRC 367 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Judicial Review application under Certificate of Urgency filed 3rd September 2015 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/367/eng@2015-09-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.