George Weke Jaba v National Bank of Kenya Limited & 14 others [2018] KEELRC 1364 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a banker's constitutional petition for being vague, duplicating an existing case, and attempting to gag investigators.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Abuse of process / multiplicity of actions
The entire Petition is an abuse of court process because the orders sought mirror issues pending in Employment Cause No. 2212 of 2016 and the Petition in essence seeks to appeal the Court's own earlier orders.
The Court found that the prayers relate to the Petitioner's employment relationship with the 1st Respondent, which is already the subject of Cause No. 2212 of 2016. The Petition also challenged the 18th May 2017 orders ('gag order'), and the proper avenue for that grievance was appeal or review. Relying on the abuse-of-process principles cited to it, the Court held the Petition untenable and dismissed it in its entirety with costs.
Whether investigative and prosecutorial bodies can be restrained from exercising their mandates
No — absent evidence that the 13th to 15th Respondents acted unlawfully or under the direction of the 1st to 12th Respondents, the Court cannot stop them from exercising their constitutional and statutory mandates.
The impugned letter by the 3rd Respondent was not a directive. The 14th Respondent is established under Article 243 and the National Police Service Act; the 12th and 15th Respondents are independent constitutional bodies. There was no evidence of illegal action emanating from the letter, so the alleged infringement was premature and anticipatory, which the Court cannot impute.
Pleading standards for constitutional petitions
The Petition fails the Anarita Karimi Njeru standard of reasonable precision; the Petitioner did not specify the damaging and unsubstantiated allegations complained of.
The Court applied the principle in Anarita Karimi Njeru v The Republic, cited with Mumo Matemu, that a petitioner must plead with reasonable precision and identify the specific constitutional articles infringed and the manner of infringement. The Petitioner's vague reference to unspecified 'damaging and unsubstantiated allegations' did not meet that threshold.
Access to documents/information for defence
Prayer 4 fails because the Petitioner can obtain the information he needs through the Evidence Act (notice to produce) and the Civil Procedure Act rather than a constitutional petition.
The Court found the prayer vague as to what documents were sought and held that the statutory mechanism for production of documents — Section 69 of the Evidence Act on notice to produce and secondary evidence — provides an adequate alternative remedy, so no constitutional order was necessary.
Legal principles established
#- A constitutional petition must be pleaded with reasonable precision, setting out the particular provisions of the Constitution said to have been infringed
- A party cannot use a constitutional petition as a vehicle to appeal or review orders of the same court; the remedy is appeal or review
- The court will not gag constitutionally mandated investigative and prosecutorial organs on the basis of anticipatory or apprehended action absent evidence of actual unlawful conduct
Court orders
#- 1.The entire Petition is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the Petition awarded to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (court of the status of the High Court, able to enforce fundamental rights ancillary to employment and labour relations, as per USIU v Attorney General as cited)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George Weke Jaba v National Bank of Kenya Limited & 14 others [2018] KEELRC 1364 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Petition No. 51 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1364/eng@2018-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.