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 the judgment text· [2023] KEELRC 1042 (KLR)

Mboya v Pharmacy and Poisons Board & 3 others (Petition E030 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1042 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 April 2023
949 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it can hear challenges to public office appointments, even when filed by a member of the public with no personal job dispute.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner filed a Petition and Notice of Motion dated February 7, 2023 challenging the appointment of the 3rd respondent, Dr. Fred Moin Siyoi, as CEO/Secretary of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent raised a preliminary objection dated February 27, 2023, contending that the Employment and Labour Relations Court lacked jurisdiction under section 12(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act because no employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioner and the respondents, and that the dispute concerned leadership or directorship of the 1st respondent, properly for the High Court. The 3rd respondent associated himself with the objection, arguing the claims were private rights claims. The petitioner relied on article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and authorities including Mumo Matemu, contending public interest standing under articles 22 and 258. The court, Ndolo J, held that jurisdiction over matters whose dominant cause of action is employment related resides in the ELRC; the naming of parties in section 12 cannot limit the wide constitutional jurisdiction under article 162(2)(a). The subject of the petition, appointment to an office in the public service, was held to be clearly an employment matter. The preliminary objection was overruled with costs in the Petition, and the parties were directed to fix the Notice of Motion for hearing on a priority basis.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether absence of an employer-employee relationship ousts the ELRC's jurisdiction

Holding

No; where the dominant cause of action is employment related, the ELRC has jurisdiction, and the enumeration of disputing parties in section 12(1) of the ELRC Act does not limit article 162(2)(a) jurisdiction.

Reasoning

The court read article 162(2)(a) together with section 12(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and held that the constitutional grant of jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes is wide and cannot be confined by the statutory naming of parties. The subject of the petition was appointment to an office in the public service, which is an employment matter, so lack of a direct employment relationship with the petitioner does not oust jurisdiction, particularly where the petition is brought under articles 22 and 258.

p. 4
02

Whether the dispute is one of directorship/leadership reserved for the High Court

Holding

No; the subject of the petition is appointment to an office in the public service, which is an employment matter within the ELRC's jurisdiction.

Reasoning

The 1st respondent argued that the dispute concerned leadership or membership of the 1st respondent and was a question of directorship for the High Court. The court rejected this characterisation, holding that the subject matter of the Petition and Notice of Motion is the appointment of the 3rd respondent to an office in the public service, which is clearly an employment matter falling within the Court's jurisdiction under article 162(2)(a).

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction over matters where the dominant cause of action is employment related resides in the Employment and Labour Relations Court, and the naming of parties under section 12 of the ELRC Act cannot limit the wide jurisdiction granted by article 162(2)(a).
  • Any person, including one acting in the public interest, may institute proceedings claiming violation of the Bill of Rights or contravention of the Constitution under articles 22 and 258.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st respondent's Preliminary Objection is overruled with costs in the Petition
  2. 2.The parties are directed to fix the petitioner's Notice of Motion for hearing on priority basis

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 162(2)(a)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 22 and 258
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12(1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Samuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    [2012] eKLR
  • United States International University v Attorney General
    [2012] eKLR
  • Daniel N. Mugendi v Kenyatta University & 3 others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Ali Jarso Wako & another v Ministry of Interior & Coordination of National Government & 5 others; Public Service Commission & 5 others (Interested Parties)
    [2020] eKLR
  • Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution; section 12(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mboya v Pharmacy and Poisons Board & 3 others (Petition E030 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1042 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1042/eng@2023-04-27

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