Republic v Ministry of Water, Sanitation and Irrigation & 2 others; Quadrant Engineering Consultants Limited & 2 others (Interested Parties); Gathii (Exparte) (Judicial Review 037 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 929 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed a consultant's judicial review bid, ruling that purely contractual termination disputes belong in an ordinary suit, not judicial review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Suitability of judicial review for contractual employment disputes
The judicial review application failed because the work relationship and impugned decisions were purely contractual without statutory or constitutional underpinning; judicial review was the most unsuited proceeding to evaluate the merits of the termination.
The court held that the applicant was attempting to unsettle the merits of termination of a contractual relationship involving layers of contracts and sub-contracts between the Government, the ISC and the sub-consultant. Merits evaluation of such contractual termination belongs to an ordinary suit, not to certiorari, mandamus or prohibition under Order 53.
Availability of Order 53 remedies
It was not shown how judicial review remedies under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules would be available on purely contractual issues.
The court reasoned that whether the relationship was consultancy or employment was itself not a matter for judicial review proceedings. Since the issues were purely contractual and no statutory duty or public law element was established, the remedies sought could not issue and the application had to collapse.
Validity of the reason for termination
The 1st interested party had a valid reason for termination - the client's dissatisfaction with the applicant's performance - which related to its operational requirements and was fair under section 45 of the Employment Act.
The court accepted the 1st interested party's showing that respondents were dissatisfied with the applicant's performance and that the employer was entitled to comply with the client's demands under a binding contract. Whether the applicant actually performed satisfactorily did not diminish the validity of the operational reason for termination.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review remedies are unavailable to unsettle the merits of termination of a purely contractual work relationship without statutory or constitutional underpinning; such disputes belong to an ordinary suit.
- A termination grounded on client dissatisfaction relates to the employer's operational requirements and constitutes a valid reason under section 45 of the Employment Act.
- Alleged non-compliance with court orders is a matter for contempt proceedings, not judicial review.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 08.12.2021 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 27, 28, 41, 47, 50 and 75 of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act; Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Ministry of Water, Sanitation and Irrigation & 2 others; Quadrant Engineering Consultants Limited & 2 others (Interested Parties); Gathii (Exparte) (Judicial Review 037 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 929 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 08.12.2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/929/eng@2024-04-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.