Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherCause No. ELRC E004/2021 (and related Cause No. ELRC E005/2021)· [2021] KEELRC 1110 (KLR)

Gideon Mukiri Muchiri & 8 others v Zachary Mwangi Njeru & 5 others; County Assembly of Nyandarua (Interested Party) [2021] KEELRC 1110 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 July 2021
DMD.K.Njagi Marete
1,010 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court in Nyeri confirmed who can represent each party in a dispute over county assembly legal representation, leaving other slots open.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri (Marete J) resolves a contest over the representation of parties in a constitutional petition arising in Cause No. E004/2021, with related Cause No. E005/2021. The dispute emerged when counsel appearing on 19th and 20th May, 2021 - Mr. Mathea for the Petitioner, Mr. Kairu instructed by Kipkoech & Ogolla for the 5th Respondent and Interested Party, and Mr. Ngaruiya for the 1st and 2nd Respondents and Interested Party - disputed service of Notices of Appointment of Advocate. Mathea and Kairu submitted they had not been served by Ngaruiya, and Kairu argued Ngaruiya was not properly on record. Ngaruiya relied on the County Assembly Services Act (S.19, S.4, S.17) concerning the clerk and the County Assembly Services Board, and on his Notice of Appointment and a letter from the Acting Clerk of the Nyandarua County Assembly. Kairu contended that the corporate respondents act through identified persons and that the Board, not the Assembly, appoints counsel, questioning documents filed by the Deputy Speaker. Mathea argued the appointing board lacked quorum when instructing Korir & Co. Advocates, and sought striking out of Ngaruiya's notice with costs. The court held the matter simple and fixed representation: Mathea for the Petitioner, Kairu continuing for the 5th Respondent and Interested Party, and Ngaruiya continuing for the 1st and 4th Respondents; representation of other parties was left open, with each party bearing its own costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Contest on representation of the Respondents and Interested Party

Holding

The court confirmed the respective counsel on record and left open representation of remaining parties

Reasoning

Having heard all counsel, the judge found the matter simple and determined appearances: Mathea for the Petitioner (uncontested), Kairu for the 5th Respondent and Interested Party, and Ngaruiya for the 1st and 4th Respondents. Representation of other parties was left open. Each party was to bear own costs.

p. 3
02

Authority of counsel purporting to act for the County Assembly and the County Assembly Services Board

Holding

Mr. Ngaruiya relied on the County Assembly Services Act establishing the Board and the clerk as Chief Administrative officer; Mr. Kairu contended the Board, not the Assembly, appoints counsel and questioned the legitimacy of documents filed by the Deputy Speaker

Reasoning

Counsel disputed who had authority to instruct advocates for the corporate respondents, invoking S.19 and S.17 of the County Assembly Services Act on the functions of the clerk and secretary, and S.46 on the Board's power to act, with quorum of the appointing board also contested.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court of first instance may determine, on hearing counsel inter partes, who is properly on record and entitled to represent parties where there is a clear contest on representation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Mr. Mathea instructed by Mathea Gikunju & Company Advocates to appear for the Petitioner
  2. 2.Mr. Kairu instructed by Kipkoech & Ogolla Advocates to continue to hold brief on behalf of the 5th Respondent and Interested Party
  3. 3.Mr. Ngaruiya to continue to hold brief for Mr. Kunini instructed by Kunini & Company Advocates for the 1st and 4th Respondents
  4. 4.The space on representation of the other parties left open
  5. 5.Each party to bear their own costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • County Assembly Services ActS.19
  • County Assembly Services ActS.4
  • County Assembly Services ActS.17
  • County Assembly Service ActS.46
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to regulate appearances and representation of parties before it

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gideon Mukiri Muchiri & 8 others v Zachary Mwangi Njeru & 5 others; County Assembly of Nyandarua (Interested Party) [2021] KEELRC 1110 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No. ELRC E004/2021 (and related Cause No. ELRC E005/2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1110/eng@2021-07-26

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