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 judgment (Ruling on Preliminary Objection dated 14th December 2021 to Notice of Motion dated 30th November 2021)· [2022] KEELRC 575 (KLR)

Lukale Moses Sande v Governor, County of Kakamega & 3 others [2022] KEELRC 575 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
10 March 2022
3,832 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to halt a county attorney's recruitment because appeals about county hiring belong first with the Public Service Commission, not the courts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Bungoma by J.W. Keli, J, dated 10th March 2022, determines a preliminary objection dated 14th December 2021 by the Respondents against the Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 30th November 2021. The Applicant, whose memorandum of claim had earlier been struck out by Radido J in Kisumu on 17th November 2021 for failure to exhaust the appeal procedure under the Public Service Commission Act and the County Governments Act, had lodged an appeal before the Public Service Commission and then sought conservatory orders of temporary injunction restraining the recruitment of a County Attorney of Kakamega County pending that appeal. The Respondents objected on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, sub judice, functus officio, absence of a substantive suit and material non-disclosure. The court applied Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lilian S' and its own precedent in Oliver Mukhebi, holding it has no jurisdiction to grant conservatory orders over appeals on county government recruitment pending before the PSC, that no substantive petition was before it, and that temporary injunctions cannot be granted in vacuum. It further found the application sub judice, distinguished the ex parte order in Catherine Gathoni Otenyo, and held itself functus officio on the question of jurisdiction. The application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction with costs to the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction to grant conservatory orders where the underlying appeal is pending before the Public Service Commission

Holding

The court has no jurisdiction to grant conservatory orders of temporary injunction where the subject matter is an appeal on recruitment/appointment pending before the Public Service Commission and no substantive petition is before the court

Reasoning

Following its own ruling in Oliver Mukhebi, the court found that to grant a temporary injunction it must first have jurisdiction over the subject matter, being the appeal on the recruitment exercise. Under Article 22 there must be a petition before the court alleging rights violations; none existed. Rule 17(1),(5) and (6) of the ELRC Procedure Rules presuppose a suit in which interlocutory relief is sought. The PSC is the forum with jurisdiction, so the application was also sub judice.

p. 4
02

Whether prior ex parte conservatory orders in Catherine Gathoni Otenyo created a binding precedent

Holding

An ex parte order issued before hearing the opponent does not form precedent; the court may vary ex parte orders at the inter partes stage

Reasoning

The Applicant relied on conservatory orders issued in Bungoma ELRC Petition No. E009 of 2021 to argue discriminatory treatment. The court noted that order was granted ex parte before hearing the opponent, and a ruling was pending after both parties were heard. The court instead followed its own precedent in Oliver Mukhebi and declined to deviate from it.

p. 4
03

Whether a substantive action is required to anchor interlocutory relief

Holding

Interlocutory conservatory orders cannot be granted in vacuum; they must be anchored on a substantive suit or petition

Reasoning

Relying on Wilson Kaberia Nkunja and SFA v AOA, the court held that among the principles for granting conservatory orders is whether the petition would be rendered nugatory absent the orders, and that granting orders in the manner sought would amount to granting final substantive relief in an interlocutory application. The applicant had filed no substantive petition before this court.

p. 4
04

Whether the court is functus officio

Holding

The court is functus officio on the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, Radido J having held that the court lacks jurisdiction pursuant to Section 87 of the Public Service Commission Act

Reasoning

The court held the suit was not res judicata because it was not heard on merit, but found itself functus officio on the jurisdictional question since Radido J had already ruled the court lacked jurisdiction under Section 87 of the Public Service Commission Act, and the Applicant had since lodged his appeal before the PSC, the right forum. The application therefore failed for want of jurisdiction.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A court must not take any further step in proceedings once it finds it lacks jurisdiction
  • A court cannot grant interlocutory conservatory relief where there is no substantive suit or petition before it and no jurisdiction over the subject matter
  • Where an appeal is pending before the Public Service Commission, which is the forum with jurisdiction drawn from the Constitution and statute, a parallel application in court is sub judice
  • A court may depart from orders issued ex parte once it has heard the opponent at the inter partes stage

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion Application dated 30th November 2021 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 22, 23, 47 and 162(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Rule 3 and 19 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013; Order 51 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lukale Moses Sande v Governor, County of Kakamega & 3 others [2022] KEELRC 575 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment (Ruling on Preliminary Objection dated 14th December 2021 to Notice of Motion dated 30th November 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/575/eng@2022-03-10

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