Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the extract (ruling on Notice of Motion dated 7th May, 2024 within a Petition)· [2024] KEELRC 1948 (KLR)

Lekakimon v Speaker, County Assembly of Baringo & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E010 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1948 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 July 2024
6,434 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~26 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to reinstate a removed county board member, saying the removal was already done, and sent the case to full trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court disposes of the Petitioner's Notice of Motion dated 7th May, 2024 seeking interim orders of status quo ante and, in the alternative, an interim mandatory injunction to reinstate him as a member of the Baringo County Assembly Service Board pending the hearing of his Petition. The Petitioner, a nominee of the minority party under section 12(3)(c) of the County Governments Act, was removed on 20th March, 2024 after the minority party resolved to revoke his nomination, and replaced by the 3rd Respondent. He contended the removal was done without notice, while he was hospitalized, in breach of Standing Order 67 and the grounds for removal in section 10 of the County Assembly Services Act. The Respondents opposed, arguing the Court lacked jurisdiction because the position was a political party nomination, that internal party dispute mechanisms and the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal had not been exhausted, and that the application was overtaken by events. Justice Hellen Wasilwa observed that a member nominated under section 12(3)(c) is an appointee or nominee of the minority party. However, the court found the decision challenged appeared overtaken by events, since the Applicant had already been removed and replaced, and declined to revoke the 1st Respondent's decision at that stage, holding it would compromise the entire petition. The court declined interim relief and directed the parties to proceed to the main petition, with costs reserved to the main petition.

Key legal issues

#
01

Overtaken by events

Holding

The court declined to revoke the removal decision because the Applicant had already been removed and replaced by the 3rd Respondent, and reversing this at the interlocutory stage would compromise the petition.

Reasoning

The court reasoned that the decision the Applicant sought to challenge had already been fully effected: he had been removed and the 3rd Respondent had taken over. Granting orders revoking the 1st Respondent's decision at that stage would, in the court's view, compromise the entire petition. The court preferred to leave interim relief unaddressed and let the parties proceed to the main petition.

p. 12
02

Nature of the appointment under section 12(3)(c) County Governments Act

Holding

A CASB member nominated under section 12(3)(c) is an appointee or nominee of the minority party or the party that deputed him.

Reasoning

The court examined section 12(3)(c) of the County Governments Act, which provides for the leader of the minority party or a Member of County Assembly deputed by him to sit on the Board. The judge construed the provision as making such a member an appointee or nominee of the party that deputed him, acknowledging the political character of the position, though the court did not expressly resolve the jurisdictional objection.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • A member of the County Assembly Service Board appointed under section 12(3)(c) of the County Governments Act is an appointee or nominee of the minority party or the party that deputed him

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declined to grant interim orders (status quo ante and mandatory injunction) at this stage
  2. 2.Directed that the parties proceed with the main petition
  3. 3.Costs in the main petition
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution; sections 12(1) and (3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 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 1948 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the extract (ruling on Notice of Motion dated 7th May, 2024 within a Petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1948/eng@2024-07-29

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