Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2018] KEELRC 2453 (KLR)

John Chebun Bor (Acting on Behalf of the Terik Community) v Wilber K. Ottichillo & 2 others [2018] KEELRC 2453 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 February 2018
2,283 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Terik Community petitioned the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu against the Governor of Vihiga and the County Assembly of Vihiga, alleging that the nomination of ten County Executive Members excluded the Terik Community and breached section 42(2) of the County Governments Act, the list having been forwarded for vetting 22 days after the swearing in of the County Assembly. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the court lacked jurisdiction because no employer-employee relationship existed and the vetting process was incomplete. The court, Nduma J, dismissed the objection. It held that the relationship between a Governor and County Executive Members is an employment relationship under the Githinji criteria (service and wage), to which the judge added direction and control as a fourth criterion, and that recruitment and vetting processes fall within section 12 ELRC Act jurisdiction. The petitioner, as a third party acting in the interest of a marginalized community, was entitled to sue under Articles 22 and 23. The court distinguished the Supreme Court's Wambora doctrine, holding it could scrutinize the impugned nomination before final appointment. Separately, the petitioner's application of 27 October 2017 sought an interim injunction barring the interested parties from taking office. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found a prima facie case but held the applicant failed to show irreparable injury, having other statutory and constitutional remedies, and that public interest favoured allowing the County Government to govern. The application was dismissed and all interim orders were discharged. No costs order appears in the judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELRC over nomination and vetting of County Executive Members

Holding

The preliminary objection fails; the court has jurisdiction because the impugned nomination and vetting relate to an employment and labour relationship

Reasoning

The court accepted the Githinji criteria (service to a real or legal person and receipt of a wage/salary), added direction and control as a fourth criterion, and held that a Governor and County Executive Members are in an employment relationship. It further held that recruitment processes, not only post-appointment disputes, fall within section 12 jurisdiction, and that the petitioner as a third party may sue under Articles 22 and 23. Relying on Mugendi and Shollei, it confirmed the ELRC's exclusive competence over such employment-related constitutional issues.

p. 3
02

Prematurity / interference with County Assembly vetting

Holding

The objection that the process was incomplete does not oust jurisdiction; the impugned nomination should be scrutinized before final appointment

Reasoning

The court distinguished the Supreme Court's Wambora ruling, noting courts should not interfere with ongoing legislative proceedings but may examine outcomes and clear unconstitutional conduct. Since nominations were made and vetting largely complete, scrutiny before final appointment was appropriate; the court could review the impugned action and if wanting, have it made right before final appointment.

p. 4
03

Requirements for interim injunction

Holding

Prima facie case established, but no irreparable injury and public interest opposes the injunction; application dismissed

Reasoning

Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found a prima facie case with probability of success but concluded the applicant had other statutory and constitutional remedies, so irreparable injury was not shown. Public interest favoured allowing the County Government to discharge its constitutional mandate to govern. The injunction was refused and interim orders discharged.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The recruitment process of County Executive Members, including nomination and vetting, is subject to the jurisdiction of the ELRC as an employment and labour relationship
  • A third party may bring proceedings on behalf of a marginalized community under Article 22 of the Constitution
  • Beyond service and wage, a fourth criterion of employment is that the person be under the direction and control of the person to whom service is given

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection is dismissed - the court holds it has jurisdiction to hear the petition on the nomination and vetting of County Executive Members
  2. 2.The application dated 27th October, 2017 seeking an interim injunction is dismissed
  3. 3.All interim orders issued pursuant to the various applications filed in this matter are discharged

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 162(2)
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 21(3)
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 22
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 23
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 41
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12
  • County Governments ActSection 42(1) and 42(2)

Cases cited (10)

  • Nick Githinji Ndichu v Clerk, Kiambu County Assembly & another
    [2014] eKLR
  • County Assembly of Kisumu and 2 others v Kisumu County Assembly Service Board and others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Prof. Daniel M. Mugendi v Kenyatta University
    Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2012
  • Judicial Service Commission v Gladys Boss Shollei and another
    Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2014 (2014) eKLR
  • Joseph Mutuura Mbeeria and another v Cabinet Secretary for Education Science and Technology & 2 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Okiya Omutatah Okoiti & another v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Education & 5 others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Martin Nyaga Wambora & others v Speaker of the Senate & others
  • Justus Kariuki Mate & another v Martin Nyaga Wambora & County Assembly of Embu
  • Doctors for Life Insurance v Speaker of The National Assembly and others
  • Giella v Cassman Brown and Company Limited
    (1973) EA 358
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 as read with section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Cap 234; Article 22 and 23 on enforcement of the Bill of Rights

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John Chebun Bor (Acting on Behalf of the Terik Community) v Wilber K. Ottichillo & 2 others [2018] KEELRC 2453 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2453/eng@2018-02-22

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