Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition No. 1 of 2015· [2016] KEELRC 814 (KLR)

Kenya Council of Employment and Migration Agencies v Nyamira County Government & 10 others [2016] KEELRC 814 (KLR)

Employment & Labour Relations Court of Kenya
19 July 2016
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
2,462 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a constitutional challenge to Nyamira County recruitments because the petition never clearly specified which rights were violated and how.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, Kenya Council of Employment and Migration Agencies, filed a public interest petition dated 7th April 2015 in the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho challenging public service recruitments by the Nyamira County Public Service Board advertised on 7th July 2014 and 5th May 2014. It alleged that the 1st to 10th respondents appointed persons to constitutional offices without interviews, merit, gender consideration, audit of certificates and due process, and that the appointments were informed by nepotism, tribalism and political patronage, offending Articles 10, 232 and related provisions of the Constitution. It sought declarations of unconstitutionality, conservatory orders and mandatory orders quashing the appointments and decisions. The 1st and 3rd respondents opposed the petition as lacking a justiciable claim, pleading only generic constitutional norms; the 2nd, 4th and 5th respondents opposed it for want of form and particulars; the remaining respondents did not answer. Marete J framed three issues: whether a substantive petition was laid down, whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought, and costs. Applying the Anarita Karimi Njeru principle and related authorities, the court held that the petition was lacking in form and clarity, failing to enlist the particulars of the rights allegedly breached, making the issues impossible to fathom or determine. The petitioner was held disentitled to relief. The petition was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs, delivered on 19th July 2016.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petitioner laid down a substantive petition

Holding

The petition was dismissed for lack of particularity; it did not disclose a substantive issue for determination

Reasoning

The court found the petition lacking in form and clarity, merely reproducing general constitutional values and principles without connecting them to specific facts demonstrating how the respondents infringed the Constitution. Applying the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold and related authorities, the court held the allegations to be a cacophony of uncoordinated allegations that made it impossible to fathom or determine the issues raised.

p. 5
02

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought

Holding

No; the petitioner was disentitled to the relief on a finding of no substantive case

Reasoning

Having found that no substantive petition had been established against any respondent, the court reasoned that the necessary foundation for relief was absent. The declarations, conservatory orders and mandatory orders sought in respect of the county public service appointments of 7th July 2014 and 5th May 2014 therefore could not issue.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A petition alleging breach of fundamental rights must set out with reasonable precision the provisions said to be infringed and the manner of infringement (Anarita Karimi Njeru principle applied)
  • A court will not entertain an imaginary or unsubstantiated allegation of infringement of fundamental rights

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the petition

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 3(1), 10, 15, 22, 23, 27, 35, 47, 48, 50, 159, 160, 162, 165, 233, 234, 235, 236, 258, 259, 260
  • County Governments Act (statute no. 23 of 2013 as referred to in the judgment)not specified
  • Public Service Commission Act2011
  • Legal Notice No. 117 of 28th June 2013not specified

Cases cited (3)

  • Anarita Karimi Njeru vs. Attorney General
  • Ramadhan Juma Abdalla and Others vs R
    Pet No. 468 of 2012
  • Nurani vs. Nurani
    (1981) KLR 88 at page 99
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 3(1), 22, 23, 258, 259, 260 and 162 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010

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, "Kenya Council of Employment and Migration Agencies v Nyamira County Government & 10 others [2016] KEELRC 814 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Petition No. 1 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/814/eng@2016-07-19

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