Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2024] KEELRC 1326 (KLR)

Lempaa v Council of Maasai Mara University & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E182 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 1326 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 May 2024
MNMathews Nderi Nduma
1,561 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a challenge to a Maasai Mara University acting appointment because the appointment had already ended, ruling courts won't decide issues that no longer matter.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner sought certiorari to quash the appointment of Prof. Onyango Kiche Magak as professor and acting Vice Chancellor of Maasai Mara University, declarations that the Vice Chancellor position fell vacant after 180 days of acting appointment, mandamus compelling competitive recruitment under section 35(1)(a)(v) of the Universities Act, declarations of violation of students' and staff consumer rights, and compensation. The respondents replied that Prof. Magak had been competitively hired as professor and appointed acting Vice Chancellor per the University Charter when the DVCs were found unsuitable; that his acting appointment was terminated on 18/1/2022 and Prof. Joseph S. Chacha appointed; and that the petition was moot, lacked locus standi, and failed the Mumo Matemu/Anarita Karimi precision threshold. The court framed two issues: whether the petition was spent and not justiciable, and whether the petitioner was entitled to the reliefs. It found uncontroverted evidence that the 2nd respondent had been removed from the impugned position, that the petitioner had not disclosed this or sought to amend the petition to join the successor, and that submissions attacking a non-party were an abuse of process. The petition also failed to specify the constitutional provisions violated and the manner of violation. Holding that the ELRC, as a court of equity, does not act in vain or engage in academic exercises, the court dismissed the petition for lack of merit and abuse of process, and, as public litigation, ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Mootness/justiciability

Holding

The petition was spent because the impugned acting appointment had been terminated before hearing, and the petitioner did not amend to pursue relief against the successor

Reasoning

The court found uncontroverted evidence that the 2nd respondent was removed on 18/1/2022. The petitioner never informed the court of this or sought to amend the petition to join Prof. Joseph S. Chacha. Attempting via submissions to impugn a non-party without amendment was an abuse of process, so the court declined to adjudicate.

p. 4
02

Pleading constitutional violations with precision

Holding

The petition failed the Mumo Matemu/Anarita Karimi threshold as it did not specify the Articles violated or the manner of violation

Reasoning

Apart from a general reference to Article 41, the petition did not identify with specificity the constitutional provisions infringed or how they were infringed. Without such precision the court cannot adjudicate the matter, and the petition disclosed no properly elaborated cause of action.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A court of equity does not act in vain and will not engage in academic exercises where the subject matter of a dispute has been overtaken by events
  • A constitutional petition must plead with precision the constitutional provisions allegedly violated and the manner of violation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is dismissed for lack of merit and as an abuse of the court process
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41
  • Universities Act, 2012Section 35(1)(a)(v)
  • Maasai Mara University Charter, 2013Sections 26(1), 26(2), 26(3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Public Service Commission and 2 others versus Eunice Cheruiyot and others
    Civil Appeal No. 119 of 2017
  • Mumo Matemu versus Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance and 5 others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Anarita Karimi
Jurisdiction invoked
Original petition jurisdiction of the ELRC under Article 41 of the Constitution (employment and labour relations dispute; no specific provision stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lempaa v Council of Maasai Mara University & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E182 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 1326 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1326/eng@2024-05-30

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