Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Petition filed 20th January 2020, ELRC Nakuru)· [2020] KEELRC 1485 (KLR)

Hassan Willy Lesupen & 3 others v National Government Constitutuencies Development Fund Board & another; Samuel Kiprotich Burgei & 7 others (Interested Parties) [2020] KEELRC 1485 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 February 2020
1,669 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled it can hear NG-CDF committee disputes directly, without first exhausting internal board or arbitration procedures.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a notice of preliminary objection filed by the 1st respondent, the National Government Constituencies Development Fund Board, against a petition filed on 20th January 2020 by members of the Ilchamus ethnic group of Baringo South Constituency. The petition challenged the application, selection, nomination and appointment of members to the Baringo South CDF Committee, with the petitioners seeking appointment based on ethnicity. The 1st respondent objected that it was wrongly enjoined, that the petition offended the mandatory arbitration-first requirement of section 56(3) of the NG-CDF Act, 2015, that the ethnicity-based claim was an abuse of process, and that the suit was overtaken by the gazettement of the committee on 3rd January 2020. Applying the Mukisa Biscuits test that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law, the court framed two issues: proper joinder of the 1st respondent and compliance with section 56(3). On joinder, it held the 1st respondent, having issued the Invitation for Applications and being the subject of specific orders sought, was a necessary party. On exhaustion, the court held that section 56 does not oust or restrict the ELRC's jurisdiction, which is derived from Articles 159(1), 162(2)(a), 165(5) and (6), 22(1) and 258(1) of the Constitution and the ELRC Act, 2011. Fact-based objections were reserved for the full hearing. The objections were dismissed, the petition was directed to be heard on a priority basis, and costs were awarded to the petitioners.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 1st respondent was wrongly enjoined

Holding

The 1st respondent is a necessary and proper party

Reasoning

The petition seeks orders against the respondents jointly and severally over the application, selection, nomination and appointment of members of the Baringo South CDF Committee. The 1st respondent issued the Invitation for Applications, making it central to the dispute. The court held it cannot be extricated without removing a necessary party required for the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the petition.

p. 3
02

Whether the petition offends section 56(3) of the NG-CDF Act requiring referral to the Board/arbitration in the first instance

Holding

Non-exhaustion does not oust the ELRC's jurisdiction

Reasoning

The court acknowledged the petitioners had not referred the dispute to the Board or arbitration, but held section 56 does not oust or restrict the ELRC's jurisdiction. The court invoked its original and unlimited jurisdiction under Articles 159(1) and 162(2)(a) read with 165(5) and (6), Articles 22(1) and 258(1) of the Constitution and the ELRC Act, 2011. It also noted the petitioners had written to the respondents raising the dispute and that the prior miscellaneous matter was no bar.

p. 3
03

Remaining objections based on matters of fact

Holding

Those objections cannot be determined at the preliminary stage

Reasoning

Objections such as abuse of process, lack of legal basis for the ethnicity claim, and that the suit was overtaken by events (gazettement of 3/1/2020) depend on facts to be ascertained. Following Mukisa Biscuits, a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law; fact-based objections go to the full hearing.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Section 56 of the National Government Constituencies Development Fund Act, 2015 does not oust or restrict the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court for want of exhaustion of the procedure and remedies envisaged under the section.
  • A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law which does not require ascertainment of facts or exercise of judicial discretion.
  • A necessary party central to the orders sought cannot be removed from proceedings.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objections by the 1st respondent are found without merit and dismissed
  2. 2.The court shall hear the main petition on priority basis
  3. 3.Costs awarded to the petitioners
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 159(1), 162(2)(a) as read with Article 165(5) and (6), Articles 22(1) and 258(1) of the Constitution, 2010 and the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hassan Willy Lesupen & 3 others v National Government Constitutuencies Development Fund Board & another; Samuel Kiprotich Burgei & 7 others (Interested Parties) [2020] KEELRC 1485 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment (Petition filed 20th January 2020, ELRC Nakuru). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1485/eng@2020-02-20

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