Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissed· [2024] KEELRC 2283 (KLR)

Munialo v The County Public Service Board County Government of Elgeyo Marakwet & another; Commission on Administrative Justice (Interested Party) (Petition E007 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2283 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 September 2024
2,667 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court blocked no one's appointment after a lawyer failed to argue the proper legal tests for emergency 'stop this hiring' orders.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner/Applicant, Joel Munialo, applied by notice of motion dated 15th May 2024 for conservatory orders of stay restraining the Respondents from processing an advertisement published on 18th April 2024 for the position of County Attorney of Elgeyo Marakwet, including shortlisting, interviews and appointment. He contended that the advertisement imposed requirements beyond those in section 5 of the Office of the County Attorney Act - which prescribes only that a candidate be an Advocate of the High Court of at least five years' standing meeting Chapter Six requirements - including ten years' post-admission experience, a Master's degree, financial management and senior management certifications, rendering the advertisement discriminatory, unfair and opaque and tailor-made for particular persons. The Respondents, through a replying affidavit of Joyce Kiplimo, argued the petition was frivolous, an abuse of process, premature, that the selection panel had not been joined, and that section 5 sets only minimum qualifications appropriate to a senior Job Group T position. Onyango J held that the application was interlocutory and that the court must not determine the substantive petition issues, even though both counsel argued the matter as if it were the main suit. Applying the settled principles for conservatory orders, the court found that counsel for the Applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, prejudice, nugatory effect or public interest, and that the phrase 'at least five years' in section 5 undermined the claim that higher requirements were unlawful. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause, leaving the main petition to proceed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant established grounds for the grant of conservatory orders

Holding

The application was dismissed because counsel for the Applicant failed to address any of the established principles for conservatory orders and did not demonstrate a prima facie case

Reasoning

The court noted that the parties argued the application as if it were the substantive petition, ignoring the interlocutory principles. Counsel for the Applicant did not show prejudice, that the petition would be rendered nugatory, or the public interest considerations, nor did he attempt to demonstrate a prima facie case. The phrase 'at least five years' in section 5 of the Act also undermined the claim that requiring ten years' experience was unlawful, since it indicates a minimum threshold.

p. 7
02

Whether the court should determine the substantive constitutional questions at the interlocutory stage

Holding

No - the court must refrain from making final findings on the merits when dealing only with an interlocutory application for conservatory orders

Reasoning

Relying on authorities including Muslims for Human Rights and Damour Florian Emmeric, the court held that at the interlocutory stage it must not reach final conclusions that would prejudice either party's ability to litigate the main petition. Although counsel argued the substantive issues, the court limited itself to the narrow question of whether the conservatory orders were merited.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for conservatory orders must demonstrate an arguable prima facie case with likelihood of success, prejudice if the orders are denied, and that the petition would be rendered nugatory, with public interest also considered
  • A court dealing with an application for conservatory orders must not delve into the substantive issues in the main petition

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 15th May 2024 seeking conservatory orders is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs shall be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Office of the County Attorney Actsection 5
  • Public Appointments County Assemblies Approvals Act No. 5 of 2017
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Chapter Six
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 3

Cases cited (6)

  • Adrian Kamotho Njenga v Selection Panel for Appointment of Commissioners of IEBC & Others
    [2021] eKLR
  • Muslims for Human Rights (Milimani) & 2 Others v Attorney General & 2 Others
    [2011] eKLR
  • Damour Florian Emmeric v Director of Immigration Services
    [2022] eKLR
  • Gatirau Peter Munya -v- Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others
  • Board of Management of Uhuru Secondary School v City County Director of Education & 2 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Wilson Kaberia Nkunja v The Magistrate and Judges Vetting Board and Others
    Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No.154 of 2016 (2016) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Constitutional petition and interlocutory application dated 15th May 2024 seeking conservatory orders under the Bill of Rights (court's jurisdiction not expressly cited in the extract)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Munialo v The County Public Service Board County Government of Elgeyo Marakwet & another; Commission on Administrative Justice (Interested Party) (Petition E007 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2283 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2283/eng@2024-09-20

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