Stephen Kiprono Ngetich v Speaker, County Assembly of Kericho & 8 others [2018] KEELRC 2495 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed a challenge to Kericho County's CEC appointments because the petitioner offered no concrete evidence, confirming that constitutional petitions require precise pleading and proof.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the court over the petition
The court declined to determine the issue, holding it was raised too late, was unpleaded and amounted to an ambush
The jurisdictional issue was raised only in written submissions, not as a preliminary objection or in the pleadings. The court found that sneaking it in at that stage ambushed both the parties and the court, and that determining it would add no value to the proceedings.
Whether the petitioner proved violation of the Constitution and County Governments Act, 2012 in the nomination, vetting and appointment
The petition failed; the petitioner did not particularise breaches or adduce evidence to discharge his burden of proof
Applying Anarita Karimi Njeru and Mumo Matemu, the court held the petitioner pleaded breaches only in general terms with no particularised or empirical evidence. The respondents' Committee report and EACC clearance demonstrated a compliant process, and the appointment process remained incomplete, making the petition premature.
Whether communities such as Kikuyus, Luos, Kisiis and Kambas in Kericho County are marginalized under Article 260
The court declined the respondents' narrow approach, holding that a purposeful interpretation captures their numeric minority position in the county
While the respondents argued that these communities are not marginalized communities under Article 260, the court held that a broad and purposeful reading of the Constitution pre-empts that narrow approach, since these communities are outnumbered in the county and their interests could be subverted.
Entitlement to relief and costs
The petitioner was not entitled to relief; the petition was dismissed with each party bearing own costs
Having failed to sustain the case of breach, the petitioner loses all prayers. The court, though dismissing the petition, exercised discretion to order that each party bear their own costs rather than awarding costs to the respondents.
Legal principles established
#- A petitioner alleging constitutional violation must plead with reasonable precision the provision infringed and the manner of infringement, and must adduce evidence in support
- He who alleges must prove; the burden of proof in constitutional petitions rests on the petitioner
- Courts may review appointment processes for constitutionality and legality but must defer to other state organs within separation of powers
- A petition challenging an incomplete nomination and vetting process is premature
- Mere names of appointees are insufficient to prove ethnic discrimination or marginalization without substantive evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed
- 2.Each party bears their own costs of the petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 10, 56, 73 and 232 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 read with the County Governments Act, 2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stephen Kiprono Ngetich v Speaker, County Assembly of Kericho & 8 others [2018] KEELRC 2495 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Petition No. 14 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2495/eng@2018-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.