Onuonga v Omollo & 2 others (Petition E018 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1386 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court nullified a public college's hiring process because the Principal alone picked the panels without written Board approval.
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 recruitment process for the position of Vocational & Technical Trainer, Accounting at Rangwe Technical and Vocational College was conducted in compliance with the Public Service Commission Guidelines
- 2.Whether the shortlisting and interviewing panels were validly constituted
- 3.Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents' actions contravened Articles 10 and 232 of the Constitution
Key legal issues
#Compliance of the recruitment process with the Commission's Guidelines
The process was not in compliance; the shortlisting panel appointments were unilaterally made by the 1st Respondent without written nomination or appointment by the Board as required
The Guidelines required the Board to appoint the shortlisting panel in writing. The 1st Respondent, as Board Secretary and custodian of records, produced no minutes or records nominating or appointing the shortlisting or interviewing panel members. A Board member who chaired the shortlisting exercise did not disclose who tasked him. The appointments therefore appeared to have been made unilaterally by the Principal, contrary to the Guidelines and Articles 10 and 232.
Constitutional compliance under Articles 10 and 232
The 1st and 2nd Respondents' conduct in constituting the panels contravened Articles 10 and 232 of the Constitution
Because the recruitment departed from the Guidelines issued by the Public Service Commission, the panel constitution was declared null and void, and the Respondents were declared to have acted contrary to the national values and principles and values of public service. The court ordered the recruitment to be commenced afresh.
Legal principles established
#- Where statutory/Guidelines procedures require an appointment in writing, unilateral action by a Principal without records of Board appointment renders the process non-compliant
- A party asserting proper constitution of a panel must rebut contrary assertions with records or minutes
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the action of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in constituting the shortlisting panel was null and void
- 2.Order restraining the Respondents, their agents or servants from proceeding with the recruitment if not concluded
- 3.In the alternative, order quashing the recruitment process carried out by the 1st and 2nd Respondents for the position of Vocational and Technical Trainer, Accounting
- 4.Declaration that the 1st and 2nd Respondents acted in a manner contravening Articles 10 and 232 of the Constitution
- 5.Order directing the Respondents to commence afresh the recruitment process for the position of Vocational and Technical Trainer, Accounting
- 6.Each party to bear own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; petition alleging contravention of Articles 10 and 232 of the Constitution (employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the ELRC)
Relief refused
#Interim injunctive orders sought at filing
No formal Motion accompanied the certificate of urgency
Costs
Each party to bear own costs, as the Petitioner is in the employ of the Respondents
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.
It is clear from the evidence placed on record that the recruitment process herein was not conducted in compliance with the Guidelines from the Commission.
The appointments appear to have been unilaterally made by the 1st Respondent.
A declaration be and is hereby issued that the action of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in constituting the shortlisting panel was null and void.
An order is hereby issued directing the Respondents to commence afresh the process of recruitment for the position of Vocational and Technical Trainer, Accounting.
The Petitioner is in the employ of the Respondents and therefore each part to bear own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number and neutral citation are not stated in the judgment text supplied
The identities of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents are not fully set out in the narrative; only the 1st Respondent (Principal) is named
Typographical error in the costs order ('each part' instead of 'each party')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onuonga v Omollo & 2 others (Petition E018 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1386 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1386/eng@2024-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.