Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherNot stated in the judgment· [2023] KEELRC 1496 (KLR)

Miinyan v Turkana County Assembly & another; Turkana County Assembly Service Board (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E008 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1496 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 June 2023
854 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a law firm must have valid instructions from a legitimately appointed official, invalidating filings made by a rival firm without authority.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This interlocutory ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court resolved a dispute over legal representation of the 1st respondent, the Turkana County Assembly, in an employment petition filed on May 17, 2023 by its former Clerk. Two law firms claimed to act for the respondents and the interested party: Sisule Musungu LLP, which filed a notice of appointment on May 25, 2023 on instructions dated May 23, 2023 signed by the Deputy Clerk, John Komol Ekomit, following the petitioner's removal as Clerk on May 15, 2023; and Muga & Associates, which filed a notice of change of advocates on May 30, 2023 together with an application dated May 28, 2023 seeking to vary and set aside consent orders recorded on May 29, 2023 allowing prayers 6, 7, 8 and 9, which reinstated the petitioner as Clerk. Muga & Associates argued that Sisule Musungu LLP lacked instructions when the consent was entered. Justice Wasilwa framed the question narrowly as who was rightfully on record on May 29, 2023. She held that Sisule Musungu LLP held valid instructions from the Deputy Clerk, who was then rightfully in office, and that the purported withdrawal of those instructions on May 31, 2023 was ineffective because the petitioner had by then been reinstated by court order. She declared Sisule Musungu LLP rightfully on record to prosecute the petition, noted the respondents' freedom to instruct other counsel in future, and struck out the documents filed by Muga & Associates as filed without instructions. No costs order was made. The main petition proceeds on its merits.

Key legal issues

#
01

Representation - which firm was rightfully on record for the 1st respondent and interested parties

Holding

Sisule Musungu LLP were rightfully on record on May 29, 2023, having filed a notice of appointment on May 25, 2023 on instructions dated May 23, 2023 signed by the Deputy Clerk, who was rightfully in office after the petitioner's removal; Muga & Associates' later change-of-advocates notice and instructions were ineffective

Reasoning

The court traced the chronology: the petitioner was removed as Clerk on May 15, 2023 and the Deputy Clerk assumed office under section 21 of the County Assembly Service Act. Sisule Musungu LLP filed a notice of appointment on May 25, 2023 with written instructions of May 23, 2023. The consent was recorded on May 29, 2023 while they were on record. The purported withdrawal of instructions on May 31, 2023 came after the petitioner had been reinstated by court order, so the Deputy Clerk lacked authority to withdraw. Documents filed by Muga & Associates without instructions were struck out.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A law firm coming on record must hold valid instructions from a person with authority to give them at the relevant time; instructions given by an officer who has been lawfully ousted cannot bind the office, nor can such an officer later withdraw instructions

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the counsel rightfully on record for the 1st respondent is Sisule Musungu LLP, who are free to proceed and prosecute the petition
  2. 2.The respondents are free to instruct any other counsel in future if they so wish
  3. 3.Documents filed by Muga & Associates, who had no instructions at the time of filing, are struck off the record

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • County Assembly Service Actsection 21
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (petition filed May 17, 2023); specific provision not cited

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Miinyan v Turkana County Assembly & another; Turkana County Assembly Service Board (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E008 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1496 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1496/eng@2023-06-21

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