Sadia & another v Rarieda Sub-County Fisheries Officer & 3 others (Petition E028 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 77 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that elected Beach Management Unit officials are not county government employees, so their removal claims cannot go to the Employment Court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Court has jurisdiction to determine the Petition
- 2.Whether the letters dated 5th August 2021 amounted to constructive dismissal
- 3.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the prayers sought
- 4.Whether Adola was duly registered hence eligible to have a chairperson
- 5.Whether the Petitioners have exhausted available mechanisms for dispute resolution
- 6.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to damages
- 7.Who should bear the costs of the Petition
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court had jurisdiction over the Petition
The Court declined jurisdiction because no employer/employee relationship was established; the removal of the Petitioners was not an employment or labour dispute.
The Court applied the statutory definition of an employee under the Employment Act and the developed tests for an employment relationship. The Petitioners did not show who paid the honorarium, nor that any Respondent exercised control over their duties or that they enjoyed statutory employment rights. Under the Fisheries (Beach Management Unit) Regulations, 2007, the County Government plays only a regulatory role, which cannot create employment.
Legal principles established
#- A regulatory function exercised by a County Government over Beach Management Units does not create an employment relationship with elected BMU officials
Court orders
#- 1.The Court declines jurisdiction and strikes out the Petition
- 2.No order on costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(1) of the Constitution and section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#All prayers in the Petition, including the claim of constructive dismissal and damages
The Court declined jurisdiction as the suspension or removal of elected Beach Management Unit officials was not an employment or labour-related dispute
Costs
No order on costs since the Respondents had also raised the question of the jurisdiction of the High Court.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The suspension and or removal from ofice of the Petitioners was not an employment or labour-related issue as contemplated under the legal framework governing the disputes this Court can entertain.
The Regulations and or such a regulatory function do not and cannot create an employment relationship between the oficials of a Beach Management Unit, being elected oficials and a County Government.
In light of the above, the Court declines jurisdiction and strikes out the Petition.
No order on costs since the Respondents had also raised the question of the jurisdiction of the High Court.
Issues in the judgment
#The case title, case number and citation are not stated in the judgment text provided
The judgment refers to 'Adalo' and 'Adola' Beach Management Unit inconsistently
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sadia & another v Rarieda Sub-County Fisheries Officer & 3 others (Petition E028 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 77 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/77/eng@2024-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.