Situma v Bungoma County Assembly Service Board(CASB) & 2 others (Cause E003 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1340 (KLR)

The ELRC is created under Article 162(2)(a) and operationalized by its own Act and rules. The court reasoned that its constitutive framework adequately provides for procedure in employment matters, and the Civil Procedure Rules apply only where specifically invited (e.g. Rules 10(2) and 73(2)). As a specialized court, its procedure is largely free of technicalities applicable under the Civil Procedure Act. Rule 74 therefore governs review, and an application premised on Section 80 CPA and Order 45 CPR is misconceived.

Rule 74(3) expressly requires the party seeking review to file a copy of the judgment, decree, ruling or order to be reviewed. The claimant did not attach the impugned order, and the court held this rendered the application procedurally defective. The claimant's reliance on authority that attachment is not mandatory under Order 45 CPR was unavailing because the ELRC procedure, not the Civil Procedure Rules, governs.

The claimant argued the order was ultra vires because the authenticity of his degree certificate was not an issue in the dismissal. The court examined the raw handwritten record, found the orders were made by Keli J suo motto on 31st May 2023 while the claimant was under cross-examination, and held that Rule 58 confers an unfettered discretion to summon witnesses so as to reach a fair and just conclusion. The court was neither misled nor misdirected, and no sufficient cause for review existed.

The application expressly sought review of orders purportedly made on 27th September 2023. In submissions the claimant admitted no orders were made on that date, attributing the error to inadvertence and invoking the oxygen principle and de minimis reasoning. The court noted the claimant did not move to amend the application. However, the court's dismissal rested on the substantive findings under Rule 74 and Rule 58 rather than on the date error alone.