Karanja v Teachers Service Commission & 8 others (Constitutional Petition 24 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 4102 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a challenge to the compulsory Teacher Professional Development programme because the petitioner offered no real evidence of any constitutional violation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ELRC had jurisdiction over the petition and whether it was res judicata
The court had jurisdiction; the petition was neither res judicata nor ultra vires its mandate.
The court is established under Article 162(1)(2)(a) with jurisdiction under Section 12 of the ELRC Act, and the petition concerns an employment/labour relationship between teachers and the TSC. The earlier ELRC Petition No. 151 of 2018 concerned the legality of a strike, with different parties and subject matter, and the status of the appeal was not disclosed. Acting in public interest under Article 22(c), the petitioner had standing despite not being a teacher.
Whether the petition met the Anarita Karimi Njeru/Mumo Matemu threshold and burden of proof
It did not; the petitioner made generalised allegations without evidence.
Although the petitioner pleaded Articles 10, 41, 47 and 232 with particulars (but none for Articles 33 and 237), he adduced no evidence of any person denied participation, of procurement irregularities, or of unfair labour practices. The unions participated in stakeholder meetings and signed CBAs. Allegations of constitutional violation must be proved by evidence, not assumed.
Whether the TPD programme, the CBAs, the appointment of university providers, and Regulation 48 were unconstitutional
No; the TPD programme is properly anchored in Article 237, Sections 11 and 35 of the TSC Act, and Regulations 41, 48 and 49 of the Code of Regulations, and none of the impugned actions was shown to be unlawful.
The court traced the legal basis of the TPD from Article 237 through the TSC Act and the 2015 Code of Regulations. Stakeholder engagement occurred through meetings and CBAs with the teachers' unions; the universities were accredited following a public advertisement and competitive process; and the challenge to Regulation 48 was unsupported by any evidence or legal argument.
Legal principles established
#- A petitioner alleging constitutional violations must plead the violated provisions with precision, give particulars, and prove the violations to the required standard.
- The basic rule of evidence that he who alleges must prove applies to constitutional petitions under Section 107 of the Evidence Act.
- A court without jurisdiction acts ultra vires, illegally, and its acts are null and void.
Court orders
#- 1.The petition dated 27th September, 2021 is hereby dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Each party is ordered to meet own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(1)(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, No. 20 of 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karanja v Teachers Service Commission & 8 others (Constitutional Petition 24 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 4102 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Petition dated 27th September, 2021 (Nakuru ELRC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/4102/eng@2022-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.