Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition dated 14th December, 2020 (Nyeri)· [2021] KEELRC 1206 (KLR)

Laikipia County Public Service Board v Public Service Commission & another; Laikipia County Government (Interested Party) [2021] KEELRC 1206 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 July 2021
DMD.K.Njagi Marete
2,990 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court dismissed a county government's challenge to the Public Service Commission's reinstatement of 34 doctors because it failed to clearly plead constitutional violations.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner (a county government employer) and the Interested Party filed a petition dated 14th December 2020 challenging the decision of the 1st Respondent (the Public Service Commission) delivered on 12th August 2020, in which the Commission allowed an appeal lodged by the 2nd Respondent (a doctors' union) and reinstated 34 doctors summarily dismissed after participating in a strike declared unprotected and unlawful by the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nyeri ELRC 20 of 2019. The Petitioner sought declarations that the terminations were fair and lawful, that the appeal before the 1st Respondent was conducted illegally, unfairly and with bias, an order quashing the Commission's proceedings and decision, and costs. The 1st Respondent countered that the Petitioner was given every opportunity to participate - through records, a conciliation process under Article 252(1)(b) which the Petitioner abandoned, and an invitation to file written submissions - but squandered all of them. The 2nd Respondent opposed the petition, contending it failed the precision threshold in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Attorney General. The court framed three issues: viability of the petition, entitlement to relief, and costs. It held that the merits of the disciplinary process were beside the point at petition stage, that the Petitioner failed to establish bias or procedural default by the 1st Respondent, and that no constitutional violation was demonstrated or pleaded with precision. Applying the Anarita Karimi Njeru standard, the court found the petition frivolous and dismissed it with costs to the Respondents on 19th July 2021.

Key legal issues

#
01

Viability of the petition

Holding

The petition was not viable as it failed to plead and demonstrate constitutional violations with precision

Reasoning

The court held that the petition was essentially a complaint against an administrative decision in an employment matter dressed as a constitutional petition. The alleged violations of the Constitution were not demonstrated or illustrated, rendering the petition frivolous. It fell short of the Anarita Karimi Njeru standard and collapsed.

p. 5
02

Whether the Petitioner was denied a fair hearing by the 1st Respondent

Holding

The Petitioner failed to establish bias or unfairness; she was uncooperative and squandered opportunities to participate

Reasoning

The claim that the 1st Respondent failed to recuse herself and ignored the Petitioner's objections did not hold. The 1st Respondent's evidence that the Petitioner was at all times uncooperative and failed to litigate her case despite numerous agitations was not rebutted. The claim of non-compliance with the Appeal Procedures Regulations failed in toto.

p. 5
03

Relevance of the merits of the terminations at petition stage

Holding

Issues of the merits of the disciplinary process belonged to the appeal before the 1st Respondent and were belated at petition stage

Reasoning

The court noted that both the Petitioner and Respondent devoted effort to litigating whether the doctors' terminations were fair, but this was beside the point. The petition only challenged the 1st Respondent's decision; merits of the disciplinary process were for the appeal level.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A party alleging constitutional violations must clearly and elaborately demonstrate such violations, pleading them with precision

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the petition
  2. 2.Costs of the petition awarded to the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 2(1), 2(2), 2(4), 3(1), 10, 19, 20, 22, 25, 27, 33, 47, 50, 232, 233, 249, 252(1)(b)
  • Employment Act, 2007Sections 41(2), 44
  • Public Service Commission ActSection 66 (as pleaded by Petitioner); section 4 of the Service Commission Act referenced in submissions
  • County Government ActSection 59(1)
  • Public Service RegulationsRegulation 78
  • Public Service Commission (County Government Public Service Appeals Procedures) Regulations, 2016Section 4

Cases cited (1)

  • Anarita Karimi Njeru vs Attorney General
    (1979) KLR 54
Jurisdiction invoked
Constitution of Kenya, 2010 - petition alleging violations of Articles 2(1), 2(2), 2(4), 3(1), 10, 19, 20, 22, 25, 27, 47, 50, 233, 249 and 252

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Laikipia County Public Service Board v Public Service Commission & another; Laikipia County Government (Interested Party) [2021] KEELRC 1206 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Petition dated 14th December, 2020 (Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1206/eng@2021-07-19

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