Ayieko v National Industrial Training Authority & another (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E070 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2307 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court refused to stop recruitment interviews, ruling that failing to publish shortlists is bad practice but not a legal violation.
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 Applicant is entitled to the conservatory orders sought, namely suspension of the planned interviews to fill 50 advertised vacancies
Key legal issues
#Whether conservatory orders should issue to suspend recruitment interviews
Application dismissed; the Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case, a violation or threat incapable of cure after the petition is heard, or a public interest
The court applied the three-pronged test for conservatory orders. It found no legal requirement to publish the list of shortlisted candidates or the interview details, holding that while transparency is good practice, its absence cannot justify cancelling interviews. The Applicant, who did not apply for any vacancy and relied on an unidentified whistle-blower, failed to show any prejudice or violation. The alleged breaches could be remedied after the main petition is determined.
Legal principles established
#- Grant of conservatory orders requires a prima facie case with likelihood of success, the petition not being rendered nugatory, and consideration of public interest
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 7th May 2024 seeking conservatory orders is dismissed
- 2.Each party to meet their respective costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 10, 22, 23, 48 and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Relief refused
#Conservatory order suspending the interviews to fill 50 vacancies advertised on 18th July 2022
Applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a likelihood of success, a violation or threat of violation that cannot be cured after the main petition, or public interest
Costs
Each party to meet their respective costs of the application
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.
The court finds there is no legal requirement that shortlisted candidates list are published or details of the interviews are made public. The court concedes it would be good practice to give as much information of the recruitment but I find no legal requirement for such a requirement to justify cancellation of interview.
the petitioner has not established a prima facie case and further he has not laid down the violation or a threat that cannot be cured after the main petition is determined. Further the court has not been shown the public interest that as been violated by the respondent
The court finds the application therefore is not merited and is dismissed accordingly.
The court orders each party to meet their respective costs of this application.
Issues in the judgment
#Advertisement date inconsistency: application refers to advertisement of 18th July 2022 while body refers to 22/7/2022 and respondents to 22/6/2022
Public Procurement Regulatory Authority cited as 'PPRA' (normally PPARA/PPRA naming inconsistency) - minor typographical issues including 'sufier' and 'afidavit' suggesting OCR errors
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ayieko v National Industrial Training Authority & another (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E070 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2307 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2307/eng@2024-09-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.