Moses Kiprotich Langat v Kericho County Assembly Committee on appointments & 3 others [2018] KEELRC 1969 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court overturned a county assembly's rejection of a county executive nominee, ruling the vetting process was biased, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELRC over challenges to county assembly vetting decisions
The court has jurisdiction; the employer/employee framing is obsolete and the respondents' authorities actually supported court intervention where a state organ acts unconstitutionally.
The respondents argued the petition violated separation of powers and that assembly proceedings were immunised under Article 117, the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act and sections 16, 17 and 12 of the County Governments Act. The court held the authority cited by respondents (Simon Wachira Kagiri, FIDA-K) confirmed court intervention where organs exercise delegated sovereignty unconstitutionally, and the petitioner's authorities confirmed the same. Six years of precedent had settled the ELRC's broad jurisdiction; the employer/employee basis was a remote, overtaken view.
Non-joinder of the County Governor
Non-joinder was not fatal; it is a procedural technicality discounted under Article 22(3)(d) of the Constitution.
The Governor's role in nomination was not contested; only the vetting process and outcome were in issue, and the Assembly and Speaker were already parties. Citing John Mining Temoi v Governor of Bungoma County, the court held it must dispense justice without undue regard to technicalities, and even the plea of orders against the Governor did not mutilate the petition.
Whether the vetting met the constitutional and statutory threshold
The vetting was fallacious, biased and violative of the petitioner's constitutional rights; the rejection was annulled and set aside.
The respondents relied on only two grounds - lack of ECDE/village polytechnics management experience and being a maternal cousin of another nominee - which the court found extraneous, irrelevant, discriminatory and not fitting any statutory criteria. The Assembly was silent on the petitioner's suitability for other portfolios, raising credibility and bias issues. The court held vetting should assess overall suitability and incorporate fairness and natural justice, and that the process amounted to a fishing expedition violating Article 10 national values.
Entitlement to relief
The petitioner, having won a case of breach of his constitutional rights by the vetting body, was entitled to the relief sought, including mandamus compelling approval and appointment and prohibition against fresh nominations.
Having found the rejection discriminative, tainted with bias and a violation of Articles 27, 28, 41(1), 47(1) and other provisions, the court granted all declarations sought plus orders of mandamus, prohibition, expungement of the offending report grounds, and costs against the respondents.
Legal principles established
#- The ELRC's jurisdiction is not confined to employer-employee disputes; it extends to constitutional violations in county appointment processes given its status as a High Court-equivalent court.
- Legislative bodies cannot plead internal rules or privilege as a shield from constitutional scrutiny; courts may intervene where a legislative authority acts unconstitutionally.
- Vetting must be free, impartial, unbiased and compliant with the law and the Constitution, confined to assessing overall suitability rather than re-assessing competency.
- Non-joinder of a necessary party is a technicality that should be disregarded in the interest of justice under Article 22(3)(d).
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the proceedings of the Kericho County Assembly to reject the petitioner for appointment to Kericho County Executive Committee breached the petitioner's constitutional rights under Articles 27(4), 27(5), 28, 39(3), 41(1), 43, 47(1), 48 and 56(c) of the Constitution and were null and void
- 2.A declaration that the proceedings breached the constitutional rights of the residents of Kericho under Article 43 and were null and void
- 3.A declaration that the proceedings patently violated section 35 of the County Government Act No.5 of 2017 and were null and void
- 4.A declaration that the proceedings patently violated section 9 of the Public Appointments (County Assembly Approval) Act No.5 of 2017 and were null and void
- 5.An order of Mandamus compelling the Kericho County Assembly to approve the nomination of the petitioner as a member of the Kericho County Executive Committee
- 6.An order of Prohibition prohibiting the Governor of Kericho County from presenting fresh names of nominees for approval and prohibiting the respondents from vetting such fresh nominees
- 7.An order of Mandamus compelling the Governor of Kericho County to appoint the petitioner as CEC member in charge of Education, Culture, Youth Affairs and Sports
- 8.An order annulling and expunging the grounds contained in page 41 of the Committee of Appointment's report for being unconstitutional and unlawful
- 9.Costs of the petition to be borne by the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 read with the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Moses Kiprotich Langat v Kericho County Assembly Committee on appointments & 3 others [2018] KEELRC 1969 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Petition No. 12 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1969/eng@2018-05-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.