Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the excerpt provided· [2019] KEELRC 784 (KLR)

Christopher Lentukunye & 3 others v Clerk, Samburu County Assembly & 2 others [2019] KEELRC 784 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 September 2019
NMNzioki wa Makau
2,166 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to hear Samburu MCAs' challenge to their removal, ruling it belongs to the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This first-instance ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri (Nzioki wa Makau, J) determined a preliminary objection against a Petition brought by four Members of the Samburu County Assembly who had been removed from party-nominated leadership positions - County Service Board representative, Majority Leader, Speaker's Panel member and Majority Whip - following a communication from the Chair on 20 March 2019 at the instance of the Jubilee Party. The Respondents objected that the court lacked jurisdiction under Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the Political Parties Act, contending the dispute was between party members and the party and belonged to the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal. Counsel for the Respondents relied on the Susan Kihika and Born Bob Maren authorities; Petitioners' counsel argued the removal procedures under the County Assembly Service Act, the County Government Act and the Standing Orders had been breached and that the court had jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b). The court applied the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' and 'Joey' jurisdictional principles, reproduced Section 40 of the Political Parties Act, and held that the contested positions were political party positions rather than strictu sensu employment or labour relations matters within Article 162(2)(b). The court upheld the preliminary objection, struck out the Petition and awarded costs to the Respondents, directing the parties to the Tribunal mechanism.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the removal of the Petitioners from County Assembly leadership positions at the instance of Jubilee Party is a political party dispute for the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal

Holding

Yes; the dispute falls within Section 40 of the Political Parties Act and outside the court's jurisdiction

Reasoning

The court reproduced Section 40 of the Political Parties Act, which vests in the Tribunal the determination of disputes between members of a political party and between a member and the party. The removal of the Petitioners was triggered by Jubilee Party and the positions were contested political party positions. Though they entailed some servanthood, they were not matters within Article 162(2)(b).

p. 3
02

Whether a preliminary objection on jurisdiction should be determined at the threshold

Holding

Yes; it saves the court and parties wasted time and resources on a matter outside the court's jurisdiction

Reasoning

Relying on theOwners of Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' and the 'Joey' case, the court held that jurisdiction is a threshold issue to be decided right away on the material before the court, however scanty, and that a court without jurisdiction must down its tools immediately.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A court must down its tools once it finds it lacks jurisdiction
  • Questions of jurisdiction must be raised and determined at the earliest opportunity on the material before the court
  • Disputes between a member of a political party and the party fall to the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal under Section 40 of the Political Parties Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection is allowed with costs to the Respondents
  2. 2.The Petition is struck out with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Political Parties ActSections 39, 40, 41; Section 40(1)(a)-(f)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 162(2)(b); Article 165(3); Article 23
  • County Assembly Service ActSection 12(5)
  • County Government ActNot specified
  • Employment ActSection 2
  • County Public Service ActStanding Order No. 17 cited by Petitioners
  • Samburu County Assemblies Act (Standing Orders No. 19)Standing Orders

Cases cited (6)

  • Republic v Susan Kihika & 2 Others Ex Parte George Mwaura Njenga
    [2014] eKLR
  • Born Bob Maren v Speaker Narok County Assembly & 3 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Republic v Chairman, Political Parties Disputes Tribunal & 2 Others Ex Parte Susan Kihika Wakarura
    [2017] eKLR
  • Republic v Benjamin Jomo Washiali, Majority Chief Whip, National Assembly & 4 Others Ex-Parte Alfred Kiptoo Keter & 3 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • The Owners of Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil Kenya Limited
    (1989) KLR 1
  • Owners and Masters of The Motor Vessel "Joey" v Owners and Masters of The Motor Tugs "Barbara" and "Steve B"
    [2007] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (employment and labour relations), jurisdiction challenged under Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the Political Parties Act, No. 11 of 2011

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Christopher Lentukunye & 3 others v Clerk, Samburu County Assembly & 2 others [2019] KEELRC 784 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/784/eng@2019-09-26

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