Aloice Ager v Kisumu County Public Service Board [2018] KEELRC 884 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a public worker to challenge county recruitment in the public interest, but dismissed his case because he could not prove the hiring was unlawful.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Locus standi of the Exparte Applicant
The Preliminary Objection that the Applicant, having been employed by the Respondent, lacked locus standi to sue in the public interest was dismissed
Article 22(1) read with Article 22(2)(c) allows any person to sue in the public interest. The court held that personal and public interests may coincide, and relied on the Machakos decision which jettisoned outdated locus standi rules for public-interest litigants. Employment by the respondent does not unclothe an applicant of standing.
Whether the recruitment breached budgetary requirements under section 60(1)(g) of the County Governments Act
No breach established; the Board showed that departments confirmed budgets before recruitment
The Respondent's replying affidavit showed 411 (not 500) positions advertised on departmental requests, with each department confirming budget for emoluments, adverts published in newspapers and the county website, phased recruitment, and 84 appointment letters issued. The Applicant filed no further affidavit to contradict this evidence, and bore the onus under sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act.
Whether writs of certiorari and prohibition ought to issue
No; the Applicant failed to prove excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice
Applying Narankaik and Chudasama, the court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6). The Respondent, as the organ mandated under Article 235(1) and sections 59 and 60 of the County Governments Act, staffed the County Government through a lawful, transparent process. The Applicant's onus was not discharged.
Legal principles established
#- Personal interest does not detract from public interest; a person may sue in both capacities
- Certiorari issues to quash a determination for excess or lack of jurisdiction, error of law on the face of the record, breach of natural justice, or where procured by fraud, collusion or perjury
Court orders
#- 1.Preliminary Objection on locus standi dismissed
- 2.Application for recall, review or setting aside of the order of 10th July 2017 staying the recruitment dismissed in its entirety
- 3.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents, to be borne by the Exparte Applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review/supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Aloice Ager v Kisumu County Public Service Board [2018] KEELRC 884 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Judicial Review Application (Exparte Applicant v Kisumu County Public Service Board). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/884/eng@2018-10-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.