Wachu v Kenya National Union of Nurses & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1455 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A resident's bid to stop Isiolo's health workers' strike failed because he lacked a direct stake, and he never filed submissions to defend the case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine both the Petition and the Application
- 2.Whether the Petitioner lacks locus standi, being not an employer, employee or party directly involved in the employment of the respondents' members
- 3.Whether the Petition and application are frivolous and an abuse of court process for want of a direct, personal or sufficient interest in the labour relationship
- 4.Whether the Petitioner has met the threshold for public interest litigation under Article 22 of the Constitution
Key legal issues
#Locus standi and jurisdiction of the ELRC in a petition on a health workers' strike
The petitioner, being neither an employer, employee nor party directly involved in the employment relationship, lacked locus standi and the Court lacked jurisdiction; the unopposed objection succeeded
The 2nd respondent raised a preliminary objection on jurisdiction, locus standi, frivolity/abuse of process, and failure to meet the Article 22 public interest litigation threshold. The petitioner, though reported by counsel to have filed submissions, filed none. The objection therefore went unopposed and was allowed as prayed, save for costs, which were declined on public interest grounds. The petition and motion were consequently struck out.
Legal principles established
#- An unopposed preliminary objection will be allowed as prayed, but costs may be withheld in public interest litigation
Court orders
#- 1.The 2nd respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 4th November 2024 is allowed as prayed, thereby striking out the Petition and the Interlocutory Motion dated 14th October 2024
- 2.No costs awarded - the Court declined to award costs since the petition is in the form of public interest litigation
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution (ELRC jurisdiction), with the objection invoking Article 165(3)(b) and Article 22 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#All reliefs sought in the Petition (declarations of unconstitutionality of strike notices, declaration that the strike is unlawful, permanent injunction, declaration that right to life outweighs right to strike, limitation of Articles 37 and 41(2)(d) rights, and costs)
The petition was struck out on the unopposed preliminary objection for want of jurisdiction and locus standi; the petitioner filed no submissions opposing the objection
Costs of the petition
The court declined to award costs because the petition was framed as public interest litigation
Costs
No costs awarded - each party to bear their own costs in effect; the court declined to award costs since the petition was in the form of public interest litigation
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.
That this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine both the Petition and the Application.
That the Petitioner has not met the threshold for public interest litigation under Article 22 of the Constitution and has moved the Court through Article 165 (3) (b).
It follows that the petitioner has not opposed the 2nd Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection and I allow it as prayed save for costs which I decline to award since the petition is in the form of public litigation suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Counsel for the petitioner told the Court that the petitioner had filed submissions, but the Court found no submissions on record - a factual discrepancy noted in the judgment itself
The 2nd respondent's counsel denied the existence of settlement negotiations previously reported to the Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wachu v Kenya National Union of Nurses & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1455 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Petition dated with Interlocutory Motion of 14th October 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1455/eng@2025-05-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.