Lekakimon v Speaker, County Assembly of Baringo & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E010 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1605 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled it can hear a Baringo board member's challenge to his removal, dismissing objections that the dispute was political or outside its jurisdiction.
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 1st and 3rd Respondents' notices of preliminary objection raise pure points of law worthy of consideration by the Court
- 2.Whether the Court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the Application and the Petition
- 3.Whether the Petitioner has locus standi to bring the present Application and Petition
- 4.Who bears the costs of the Preliminary Objections
Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objections raised pure points of law
The objections depended on contested factual questions (existence of an employment relationship and the role of the political party) and so fell outside the Mukisa Biscuits test
The court accepted the petitioner's submission that a preliminary objection must rest on undisputed points of law. Determining whether the petitioner and respondents had an employer-employee relationship, and whether removal was effected by the political party or by the Speaker's directions, would require evidence. Hence the objections could not be sustained as pure points of law.
Whether the Petitioner had locus standi
Locus standi was founded on Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which permits any person to enforce Bill of Rights freedoms; the objection to locus was rejected
Article 22(1) grants every person the right to institute proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened. The right to petition does not depend on an employment or contractual relationship with the respondents. The submission that the petitioner lacked locus was therefore disregarded.
Whether the ELRC has jurisdiction over a dispute concerning removal of a politically nominated member of a County Assembly Service Board
The Court found jurisdiction, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Kenya Tea Growers v NSSF that ELRC jurisdiction is not restricted to employer-employee relationships
Applying the Supreme Court's expansive reading of 'disputes relating to employment and labour relations', the court held that its jurisdiction is no longer confined to strict employer-employee relationships. Since determination of the relationship would require evidence, and since the Supreme Court has approved a broad reading of section 12 of the ELRC Act, the preliminary objections lacked merit and were dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- The jurisdiction of the ELRC is not confined to employer-employee disputes but extends to matters relating to or affecting employment and labour relations
- Whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a question of fact that cannot be resolved on a preliminary objection
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objections raised by the Respondents lack merit and are dismissed
- 2.Costs in the Petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23 and 162(2)(a) of the Constitution; sections 12(1) and (3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011
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.
Every person has the right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened.
It is indeed true that if this court gets into party nomination and which party has the strength, issue of facts have to be presented to this court and therefore will fall outside the Mukisa Biscuits parameter.
From the Supreme Court of Kenya’s decision, the jurisdiction of this court is not restrictive to employer-employee relationship but also extends to matters that may afiect an employer and an employee.
Having said this, I find the Preliminary Objection as set out lacks merit and is therefore dismissed accordingly. Costs in the Petition.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the petition is not stated anywhere in the judgment
The court station is not stated in the judgment; only virtual delivery is noted
The petitioner relied on 'section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2014' in submissions although the Act is elsewhere cited as 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lekakimon v Speaker, County Assembly of Baringo & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E010 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1605 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (Petition dated 7th May, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1605/eng@2024-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.