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· [2021] KEELRC 1148 (KLR)

Joel Akinga Ondieki v Central Rift Valley Water Works Development Agency & 5 others [2021] KEELRC 1148 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 July 2021
3,336 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that any citizen can sue to challenge rights violations, even on someone else's behalf, so the petition proceeds.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, Joel Akunga Ondieki, a self-described water consumer, filed a constitutional petition and a contemporaneous notice of motion on 10th May 2021 challenging the decision of the 1st respondent's Board of Management of 30th April 2021 relating to the non-renewal of the contract of Chief Executive Officer Engineer Hosea Kipyegon Wendot and the composition of the Board. He sought interim orders staying the Board's decision, restoring the status quo, freezing the Board's operations and restraining changes to bank signatories. Before the application was heard, the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents filed a preliminary objection contending that the petitioner lacked locus standi since he admitted suing in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the CEO; that the suit offended the doctrine of exhaustion, the principle of constitutional avoidance, and the privity of contract rule; that the Employment and Labour Relations Court lacked jurisdiction over the board-composition issues; and that the petition failed the Anarita Karimi Njeri precision test. The Attorney General supported the objection. The petitioner countered that Article 22 and Article 258 confer broad standing, including public-interest litigation. The court held that Article 22(1) and (2) grants any person the right to institute proceedings claiming a breach of the Bill of Rights, whether on their own behalf, on behalf of another, or in the public interest, and that the petitioner's complaint regarding Article 10 national values sufficed to clothe him with standing. The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs in the case, and the main application and petition were directed to proceed to hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Locus standi of a petitioner suing in his own capacity to raise employment-related constitutional grievances of another person

Holding

The petitioner has locus standi under Article 22 as expanded; a person may file on his own behalf or on behalf of another, and the liberal approach to standing applies

Reasoning

The court read Article 22(1) and (2) literally, noting that standing extends to a person acting in their own interest, on behalf of another who cannot act in their own name, in the interest of a group, or in the public interest. The petitioner, a consumer of water within the respondent's jurisdiction, alleged breach of Article 10 national values in the appointment and contract renewal of the CEO. The court held this clothed him with standing, and dismissed the objection.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Under Article 22(1) and (2) of the Constitution, every person has the right to institute court proceedings claiming a violation of the Bill of Rights, whether in their own interest, on behalf of another, or in the public interest

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection is dismissed for lack of merit
  2. 2.The main application on the petition is directed to proceed
  3. 3.Costs in the case

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 22(1) and (2)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 258
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 10
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(c)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 162(2)(a)
  • Employment ActSection 12
  • Water Act, 2016Sections 82, 119 and 124
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActNot specified

Cases cited (12)

  • Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd
    [1915] AC 87
  • Anarita Karimi Njeri v The Republic
    [1976-1980] KLR 1272
  • Kiluwa Limited & another v Commissioner of Lands & 3 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Sisilia Nyakoe & Another v Attorney General & 4 others
    [2021] eKLR
  • Attorney General & 2 others v Okiya Omtata Okoiti & 14 others
    [2020] eKLR
  • Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K) v Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme & 3 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Kenya Council of Employment and Migration Agencies & Another v Samuel Mwongera Arachi & 2 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' v Caltex Oil Kenya Limited
    [1989] eKLR
  • Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v Galot Estate Kiambu & 2 Others
    [2019] eKLR
  • Solo Nzuki v Salaries and Remuneration Commission & 2 Others
    [2019] eKLR
  • Mureithi & 2 others (for Mbari ya Murathimi Clan) v Attorney General & 5 others
    [2006] 1 KLR 443
  • Okiya Omtatah Okoiti and another v KEMRI Board of Management & 4 others; Salaries and Remuneration Commission (Interested party)
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 22, 258 and 162(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joel Akinga Ondieki v Central Rift Valley Water Works Development Agency & 5 others [2021] KEELRC 1148 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1148/eng@2021-07-29

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