Association of Public Health Officers of Kenya v Narok County Chief Officer, Medical Services, &2 others [2019] KEELRC 120 (KLR)

The court examined Rule 7 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016 with sections 12 and 22 of the ELRC Act, 2011, which enumerate parties with standing. The petitioner did not fall within any category of employment and labour relations disputes. Reliance on Articles 22 and 260 of the Constitution failed because there was no evidence of registration and no authority letters; membership certificates were inadequate. The court invoked Nation Media Group v CRADLE and the prohibition of hypothetical or speculative litigation.

The court read section 72 of the Act in the context of section 46(2)(e) and (f), which require a county government to organise departments flexibly to respond to changing priorities and to assign clear responsibilities. The respondents' averments showed the two chief officers worked closely with overlapping functions and could deploy officers pursuant to section 72(1). The deployment was thus within the mandate of the 1st respondent.

The court noted Dr Gachachi's uncontroverted averment at paragraph 29 that the officers deployed under Posting Order No.59 had reported to their duty stations. The court took this as meaning the employees had accepted the employer's directions for good cause, undermining the practical utility of the interim and final orders sought.