Joyce Chepkoech Kemei v County Government of Bomet & 3 others [2018] KEELRC 1650 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a county worker's constitutional petition because it lacked evidence, precision, and re-litigated issues already decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petition was a representative suit
The petition was a mixed grill of a personal petition and an unauthorised representative suit; the petitioner did not catalogue the other employees or comply with procedure on representative suits
The petitioner asserted she sued in her personal capacity and on behalf of several other employees who were promised conversion to permanent and pensionable terms. The court found she did not identify those employees nor comply with the law on representative suits, and that the constitutional violations pleaded were a hollow illustration unsupported by evidence, offending Rules 3(1) and 4(1) of the Mutunga Rules.
Whether the petition was pleaded with reasonable precision
It was not; the petitioner cited Articles 27, 28, 29, 41, 47, 48, 19 and 20 without evidence or detail of actual violations, failing the Anarita Karimi Njeru standard
Relying on Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic and Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance, the court held that a litigant invoking the Constitution must set out with reasonable precision the complaint, the provisions infringed and the manner of infringement. The petitioner left a hollow illustration of violations, which also disposed of the second issue.
Whether the petitioner was an employee of the County Government of Bomet and whether her termination breached constitutional rights
The petitioner was not in employment; her engagement was irregular and unlawful, borne out of the machinations of the county executive without the involvement of the County Public Service Board, rendering the termination lawful
The petitioner sought reinstatement, confirming she was no longer employed. She had exited the county payroll in December 2017 pursuant to court orders in Kericho ELRC Cause No. 51 of 2017 and related litigation establishing that certain cadres of Bomet County employees were irregularly employed without regard to law, process or Board involvement, so termination was lawful and not in breach of the Constitution.
Whether the suit was an abuse of the process of court
Yes; the petition was unfounded on evidence, an attempt at relitigating determined issues, and a second bite of the cherry
The petition and its supporting evidence showed a desperate attempt at making sense out of no sense, unmoored from any evidence. The issues had been litigated in Kericho ELRC 8/2016, 46/2017, 48/2017, 50/2017 and 51/2017. Despite those determinations the petitioner clung to a defenceless suit, an explicit abuse of court process attracting dismissal with costs.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking constitutional redress must set out with a reasonable degree of precision the complaint, the provisions infringed and the manner of infringement
- Senior public employees ought to know that recruitment in a public entity falls within a peremptory legislative framework, and appointments they knew or ought to have known were unlawful are void ab initio
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed
- 2.Costs awarded to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 41(1) and (2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (employment and labour relations jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joyce Chepkoech Kemei v County Government of Bomet & 3 others [2018] KEELRC 1650 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Petition No. 1 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1650/eng@2018-06-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.