Itolondo v Vice Chancellor of Kenyatta University (Petition E153 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 882 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it can hear a university restructuring dispute and refused to halt a report that was never produced in court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Court has jurisdiction notwithstanding the exhaustion-of-remedies argument under Sections 14 and 23 of the Access to Information Act.
The Court has jurisdiction; Section 14 is permissive, not mandatory, and does not oust the Court's jurisdiction, and the Petition does not merely seek access to information but broader relief.
The Respondent argued the dispute concerned access to information and ought first to go to the Commission on Administrative Justice under Sections 14 and 23 of the Access to Information Act. The Court held Section 14(1) is not couched in mandatory terms, so an applicant may elect whether to move the CAJ. Further, the Petition's orders go beyond access to the Report and seek to stop, quash and prohibit its implementation, so the matter is not outside the Court's jurisdiction.
Whether a stay of implementation of the Report on Reforms and Restructuring of Kenyatta University should issue at the interlocutory stage.
No; the Report is not before the Court and its existence and scope are unascertained, so the stay orders sought would be speculative and lacking in precision.
The Applicant sought to stay implementation of a Report that was not on record and whose existence the Respondent did not admit. She had not sought orders to access the Report at that stage. The Court reasoned that staying an unknown document would amount to issuing orders blindly, which would be speculative, general and lacking in precision, and declined the relief.
Legal principles established
#- Section 14(1) of the Access to Information Act is not mandatory; a party may elect whether or not to apply to the Commission on Administrative Justice, and the provision does not oust the Court's jurisdiction.
- A court should not issue interim orders staying the implementation of an unproduced and unascertained document, as such orders would be speculative and lacking in precision.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's Preliminary Objection dated September 30, 2022 is declined.
- 2.The Applicant's Applications dated August 18, 2022 and September 16, 2022 are found to be without merit and are dismissed with no orders as to costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; the judgment determines jurisdiction on the basis that no provision of the Access to Information Act ousts the Court's jurisdiction, the dispute being essentially an employment/labour relations dispute.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Itolondo v Vice Chancellor of Kenyatta University (Petition E153 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 882 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Petition No E153 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/882/eng@2023-04-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.