Abura v Coast Water Works Development Agency & 11 others (Petition E009 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1977 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court in Mombasa dismissed an attempt to kick out a law firm over representation papers, confirming parties can fix filing mistakes and choose their own lawyers.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection raised a pure point of law
The objection failed because the representation issue was cured by amendments to the Notice of Appointment and the Attorney General's entry of appearance
The court reaffirmed the Mukisa Biscuits test that a preliminary objection must rest on pure points of law apparent from the pleadings. Here the firm had amended its Notice of Appointment to reflect the corrected representation, and the Attorney General had appeared for the state corporation respondents. The petition was at a preliminary stage where amendments are freely allowed, so the objection no longer held merit.
Whether interested parties can appoint their own advocates without the Attorney General's Certificate
Interested parties sued in their personal capacity as Deputy Directors have a right to choose their own advocate
The petitioner argued the interested parties' actions could not be separated from their official roles in the 1st respondent, so only the Attorney General could sanction their representation. The court held that because the petitioner brought them to court personally, they must defend themselves personally and may select counsel of choice; the court cannot dictate who represents them.
Legal principles established
#- Preliminary objections must be raised on pure points of law based on the pleadings
- Parties may amend pleadings before judgment and the court should permit amendments meeting the ends of justice
- Interested parties sued in their personal capacity have the right to choose their own advocate
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 3 June 2025 is dismissed as without merit
- 2.Records to be updated with the Further Amended Notice of Appointment of Advocate by Muturi Gakuo & Kibara Advocates
- 3.Records relating to the 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th and 11th respondents and 1st to 6th interested parties, whether filed or to be filed, to be kept in a single bound folder marked for those respondents and interested parties
- 4.The 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th and 11th respondents and the 1st to 6th interested parties to comply with Rule 24(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules and submit hard copy bundles of records
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance petition before the Employment and Labour Relations Court pursuant to the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abura v Coast Water Works Development Agency & 11 others (Petition E009 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1977 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1977/eng@2025-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.