Mohammed v National Mining Corporation & 2 others (Petition E090 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2101 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it can hear job recruitment disputes, but ruled that topping interviews doesn't guarantee appointment when the hiring authority has lawful discretion.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction for want of an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondents
- 2.Whether the interested party was appointed in contravention of the cited constitutional provisions or in a whimsical or arbitrary exercise of discretion by the 1st and 2nd respondents
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELRC has jurisdiction over a pre-employment recruitment dispute in the absence of an employer-employee relationship
The Court has jurisdiction; the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act deem applicants for employment to be employees, bringing pre-employment disputes within section 12 of the ELRC Act
The Court distinguished Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital v Gikenyi, reading it as conferring concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court rather than ousting the ELRC. Section 5 of the Labour Relations Act and section 5 of the Employment Act define employees to include persons seeking employment, imposing non-discrimination obligations on prospective employers. ILO Convention No. 111 also mandates national policy against discrimination in recruitment, anchoring pre-employment disputes within the ELRC's jurisdiction.
Whether the appointment of the interested party rather than the top-scored petitioner violated Articles 27, 41, 47 and 232 of the Constitution
No violation established; the Cabinet Secretary exercised a lawful discretion under the applicable circular to appoint one of three recommended candidates
The circular required the best three candidates to be recommended, giving the Cabinet Secretary discretion to appoint any one of them. The petitioner, though top-scored, said nothing of the overriding criteria in Article 232(1)(h) and (i). The petitioner produced no evidence of irrelevant considerations or denial of information. The respondents discharged the evidential burden under section 5(7) of the Employment Act on a balance of probability, and the decision met Wednesbury reasonableness.
Legal principles established
#- Pre-employment recruitment, selection and appointment disputes fall within the jurisdiction of the ELRC; a prospective employee is statutorily deemed an employee and need not prove an employer-employee relationship
- Strategic or public interest litigation within the ELRC's subject matter jurisdiction cannot be defeated for want of an employer-employee relationship
- Under the State corporations CEO recruitment circular, the appointing authority may appoint any one of the three competitively recommended candidates; top performance at interview alone does not create a right to appointment
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of preliminary objection dated 09.06.2025 is found unmerited and is dismissed
- 2.The petition is dismissed
- 3.Each party to bear own costs of the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) and 165(5)(b) of the Constitution as read with section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Declaration that the 2nd respondent's appointment of the interested party as CEO violates Articles 27, 41, 47 and 232 of the Constitution
Petitioner failed to establish the alleged violations with evidence; the Cabinet Secretary exercised the discretion under the applicable circular
Order of prohibition restraining the interested party from assuming office as CEO
Overtaken by events; the interested party was appointed and assumed office on 29.04.2025
Order of certiorari quashing the decision appointing the interested party
No basis laid for quashing; the appointment was within the applicable circular and not whimsical or arbitrary
Order of mandamus compelling the 2nd respondent to appoint and gazette the petitioner as CEO
The circular gave the Cabinet Secretary discretion to appoint any of the three recommended candidates; top score did not entitle the petitioner to automatic appointment
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the petition
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.
Accordingly, the preliminary objection is found unmerited.
In conclusion the petition is hereby dismissed and each party to bear own costs of the petition.
The Court finds that it has jurisdiction with respect to pre-employment recruitment, selection, and appointment or promotional disputes per the relevant provisions of the Constitution, ELRC Act, Labour Relations Act, and, the Employment Act.
the petitioner has failed to establish the violation of the cited provisions in the Bill of Rights as was alleged.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment spells the 2nd respondent's deponent's name inconsistently as Harry Kimtai and Harry Kimutai
The respondents are referred to variously as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents although only a 1st and 2nd respondent and an interested party are otherwise described
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital & 3 others v Gikenyl & 74 others[2026] KESC 50 (KLR)3 Jul 2026followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mohammed v National Mining Corporation & 2 others (Petition E090 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2101 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2101/eng@2025-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.