Omuomo v Chief Executive Officer, Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & another (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E009 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1464 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a civil servant's attempt to overturn his sacking through judicial review, ruling employment disputes must go through a normal employment claim instead.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether judicial review is an appropriate vehicle for a dispute arising wholly from an employment contract
It is not. The dismissal and salary withholding are governed by private law under the Employment Act 2007, and the Applicant should have filed an ordinary claim for reinstatement and remuneration rather than seeking prerogative orders.
The court relied on Court of Appeal authority (Maseno University v Ochonge; Adongo v KICC) establishing that contractual employment disputes are matters of private law incapable of protection under the supervisory jurisdiction of judicial review. A claim for salary arrears and reinstatement transcends judicial review reliefs and requires viva voce evidence. Constitutional rights under Articles 41 and 47 may be vindicated by petition, not by an Order 53 certiorari application.
Whether constitutional violations raised (Articles 41(1) and 47(1) and (2)) save the judicial review application
No. Such rights claims fall under Article 22 and must be pursued by petition under the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, whose reliefs under Article 23(3) are distinct from prerogative orders under Order 53.
The court observed that Article 23(3)(f) judicial review in a petition is not the same as an Order 53 application for certiorari. The Applicant invoked Order 53 expressly, so the constitutional framework did not rescue the application; procedural fairness complaints were instead amenable to resolution under the contract and the IEBC HR Manual.
Whether the Respondents followed lawful procedure in disciplining the Applicant
Obiter: although the Applicant admitted the misconduct, the Respondents took an inordinately long period (about 16 months) to process the disciplinary hearing, but such procedural fairness issues are resolvable under the contract and the IEBC HR Manual, not in this application.
The court noted the notice to show cause, salary stoppage and dismissal spanned some sixteen months and that the Applicant's appeal was still pending. However, the manner in which the Applicant approached the court (by way of judicial review on affidavits) would not allow factual disputes to be ventilated or appropriate remedies granted.
Legal principles established
#- Dismissal from employment and withholding of salary arising from an employment contract are matters governed by private law under the Employment Act and are not appropriate for judicial review; the proper remedies, such as reinstatement and salary arrears, must be sought in a normal claim before the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court orders
#- 1.The judicial review application is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution read with Order 53 Rule 1(3), Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omuomo v Chief Executive Officer, Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & another (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E009 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1464 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1464/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.