Alice Nyokabi Njoroge & 5 others v Public Service Commission & another [2020] KEELRC 175 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants established a prima facie case warranting injunctive and stay orders
No prima facie case was established; the application failed at the first Giella principle
The court compared the Scheme of Service for Community Health Service Personnel with the Revised Scheme of Service for Public Health Assistants and Public Health Officers and found the scopes markedly different. The advertised certificate-level qualifications did not include environmental health sciences, and 'equivalent qualification' cannot be stretched to cover a different discipline. The Respondent was recruiting within the existing scheme, and the Applicants' certificates did not specify the scope of their training.
Whether the impugned advertisement was discriminatory and unconstitutional for excluding Public Health and Environmental Health qualifications
No violation established; the advertisement conformed to the existing Scheme of Service
The Respondent explained that Community Health Extension Workers required specific training in Community Health and Community Health & Development, including the 22-module CHA III programme, to perform the UHC-related tasks. Since the recruitment was guided by the qualifications set out in the Scheme of Service for Community Health Personnel, the Respondent could not lawfully include qualifications not specified there, and no constitutional violation was demonstrated.
Whether the court can grant orders in respect of actions already taken (mootness/overtaken by events)
The court declined to determine this issue as the application had already failed on the prima facie case threshold
The Respondents argued that shortlisting, interviews and recruitment had already taken effect, so orders of prohibition or stay would be granted in vain, relying on Kenya National Examinations Council v Republic Ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge. The court held it need not decide the point since it had already found no prima facie case.
Legal principles established
#- 'Equivalent qualification' in a scheme of service can only be interpreted by reference to the same subjects, not different disciplines
- A recruiting body must recruit within the qualifications specified in the applicable scheme of service and cannot add qualifications not specified therein
- The Giella principles are applied sequentially: failure of the first principle (prima facie case) means the applicant fails on the second
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 19th May 2020 is dismissed
- 2.Costs shall abide the outcome of the petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated in the judgment; matter brought by Petition and Notice of Motion dated 19th May 2020 under the Constitution (Articles 10, 232, 159(2)(d), 48 cited)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Alice Nyokabi Njoroge & 5 others v Public Service Commission & another [2020] KEELRC 175 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Petition No 89 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/175/eng@2020-12-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.