Ojwang v Masha & 2 others (Petition E167 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2069 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a petition challenging the NSDCC CEO's contract renewal, ruling the Council lawfully renewed it for three years.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Admissibility of documents allegedly obtained in violation of Article 50(4)
Emails marked SO-3 and SO-3B were struck off as illegally obtained, but the appointment, concurrence and renewal letters were retained because the Respondents relied on them and no prejudice would ensue
The court was satisfied that documents concerning the 1st Respondent's conduct at work infringed her right not to have prejudicial information obtained illegally for production before court. However, the official record letters had been relied upon by the Respondents themselves, so no possible prejudice or violation of rights under Article 50(4) could emanate from them.
Whether the petition disclosed a cause of action
The petition disclosed no cause of action because the renewal letter of 1st August 2023 showed a lawful three-year renewal effective 14th September 2023
The court found the petitioner's allegation of a one-year term contradicted by the renewal letter and contract for three years. The petitioner itself acknowledged the three-year contract was issued contrary to the CS's one-year approval, calling it patch work, but the appointing authority was the Council requiring only CS concurrence, and any lesser period in the concurrence letter did not invalidate the Council's mandate to renew.
Entitlement to the reliefs sought
No violation of the Petitioner's rights or public interest was proved; judicial review of the renewal was reserved for irrational or perverse decisions
Relying on Michael Kiptoo v Kenya Medical Training College, the court held that the Council's decision to renew was not demonstrably unreasonable, irrational or perverse. The Petitioner failed to prove any violation or threat to its rights or to public interest in the renewal by the Council as appointing authority with the CS Health's concurrence.
Legal principles established
#- The court will only quash an appointment or renewal decision if it is demonstrably unreasonable, irrational or perverse
- The appointing authority of the CEO is the Council and only requires concurrence of the Cabinet Secretary
- A shorter period stated in a concurrence letter, even if erroneous, does not remove the mandate of the Council to renew the contract
- A party alleging illegally obtained documents should instead have sought a notice to produce and adverse inference
Court orders
#- 1.The emails marked as annexes SO-3 and SO-3B are struck off the record for having been obtained illegally in violation of Article 50(4) of the Constitution
- 2.The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs, this being a public interest litigation
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya 2010 - petition alleging violation of Articles 2(1), 10(2), 35(1)(a), 73 and 75 (court not stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ojwang v Masha & 2 others (Petition E167 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2069 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2069/eng@2025-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.