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 No 4 of 2018· [2021] KEELRC 2349 (KLR)

Francis Chemwor Pso Muken & 2 others v The Speaker Trans-Nzoia County Assembly And 3 others [2021] KEELRC 2349 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Eldoret (High Court)
11 June 2021
JAJ. N. Abuodha
2,730 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that an order cancelling an irregular hiring process binds every employee who benefited from it, even if they were never named in the case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret disposes of an Amended Motion dated 15th January 2021 by the 16th respondent and four other applicants seeking stay of endorsement of the judgment delivered on 30th October 2020, review and variation of that judgment so it would not affect their employment, reinstatement, and an injunction against advertising or filling their positions. The applicants, falling among the 5th to 48th respondents, claimed they were never served with the amended petition, were erroneously recorded as represented by M/s Kiarie & Company without instructions, and that their employment terminated pursuant to the judgment was not within its scope because they were not among the 34 employees whose contracts were upgraded at the Sunset Hotel Kisumu resolution of 27th June 2016. The petitioners opposed, arguing the judgment was delivered on the merits, that the applicants produced no evidence of employment on separate terms before the impugned process, and that the decree had already been executed by termination letters of 14th January 2021. The court held that its judgment was directed at the process of upgrading fixed-term contracts to permanent and pensionable terms without an open, competitive selection, and that the order was general, binding anyone who benefited from the impugned process. Finding no error apparent on the face of the record and no evidence separating the applicants' employment from the process, the court dismissed the application with costs on 11th June 2021.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants showed a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record justifying review

Holding

No - the judgment concerned the process of upgrading fixed-term contracts to permanent and pensionable terms without fair and transparent process, and the applicants were part of that process

Reasoning

The court reasoned that its decision concerned anyone appointed from the interviews of 26 October 2015 on two-year renewable contracts and upgraded to permanent and pensionable terms without competitive selection. The order was general in nature, so individual employees need not have been named. The applicants produced no advertisement or minutes evidencing separate employment prior to the impugned process.

p. 4
02

Whether the applicants' employment was separable from the impugned process

Holding

It was not - they produced no evidence of employment on distinct terms outside the transition process

Reasoning

The petitioners contended, and the court accepted, that the applicants had not annexed any advert or minutes showing they were employed on permanent and pensionable terms on a separate date prior to the job advertisement and shortlisting. Their appointment letters purporting to employ them on permanent terms without any advertisement were considered curious and an afterthought.

p. 4
03

Whether the 16th respondent was denied a hearing through non-service and erroneous representation

Holding

Not determined in her favour - the application failed because she was bound by the general order regardless of the procedural complaints

Reasoning

The 16th respondent claimed she was never served with the amended petition and that M/s Kiarie & Company erroneously recorded appearance for the 5th to 48th respondents without instructions. The court did not accept this as a ground for review, holding the order was directed at the process and bound all who benefited from the impugned process.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A court order directed at an impugned process binds anyone who benefited from that process even if not named individually

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 15th January 2021 is dismissed with costs
  2. 2.It is so ordered

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 16
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) RulesRule 33

Cases cited (2)

  • Assistant Commissioner Income Tax vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (2008)
  • Nyamego .v. Kogo (2001) E A 174
    (2001) E A 174
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 33 of the Court (Procedure) Rules - power to review its own judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Francis Chemwor Pso Muken & 2 others v The Speaker Trans-Nzoia County Assembly And 3 others [2021] KEELRC 2349 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Petition No 4 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2349/eng@2021-06-11

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