Lekakimon v Speaker, County Assembly of Baringo & 2 others (Petition E010 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2394 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a County Assembly Service Board member removed by his party is not an employee and must seek redress through political party channels.
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 Petitioner was an Employee of the Respondents or the County Assembly Service Board, with the capacity to pursue an employer-employee dispute before the Court.
- 2.Whether the Respondents had the power and/or legal authority to remove the Petitioner from office.
- 3.Whether due process was followed in removal of the Petitioner.
- 4.What remedies are available to the Petitioner.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioner was an Employee with capacity to sue in the E&LRC
He was not; no employer-employee relationship existed with the Respondents or the Board
The Petitioner was nominated by his Minority Party under Section 12para 3[c] of the County Governments Act, earned no wages or salary, only allowances under Section 15 of the County Assembly Services Act, and had no contract of service within the meaning of Section 2 of the Employment Act. The Board is a body corporate with separate legal identity, capable of employing but not contracting its Members. Following the Court of Appeal in Rift Valley Water Services Board v. Asanyo, a Board Member is not an Employee.
Proper forum for the dispute
The E&LRC lacks jurisdiction; the dispute belongs to internal party mechanisms and the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal under Section 40para 2 of the Political Parties Act
The removal stemmed from a decision of the nominating Minority Party, a political dispute rather than an employment one. The Speaker was bound by the party's decision and correctly pointed the Petitioner to internal mechanisms. Following Kieru John Wambui and other authorities, such disputes must first exhaust internal party mechanisms, then proceed to the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal.
Whether the Respondents had power to remove and whether due process was followed
Not determined for want of jurisdiction
Having concluded that the Court lacks jurisdiction on the employer-employee threshold issue, the Court declined to delve into the power to remove, due process, and remedies issues.
Legal principles established
#- A Member of a County Assembly Service Board nominated by a political party is not an Employee, as membership is not founded on an employer-employee relationship or a contract of service with wages or salary.
- Disputes over political party nomination/recall of a Board Member should be channelled through internal party grievance mechanisms and then the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal, not the E&LRC.
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is declined.
- 2.No order on the costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the E&LRC; no specific constitutional article invoked as basis of jurisdiction
Relief refused
#Declarations that removal was unconstitutional under Articles 41, 47, 50, 232; reinstatement; certiorari; compensation of allowances and general damages
The Court lacks jurisdiction as there was no employer-employee relationship; the dispute is political, for internal party mechanisms and the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal
Costs
No order on the costs.
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.
The Petitioner’s membership of Baringo County Assembly Service Board, was not founded on an employer – employee relationship.
Failing those mechanisms, the Petitioner has the option of approaching the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal, pursuant to Section 40 [2] of the Political Parties Act.
It is ordered: a. The Petition is declined. b. No order on the costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment lists the Leader of the Minority Party's nominee as 'Vice-Chairperson' in both (c) and (d) of the composition, whereas the Petitioner's own pleading describes a Vice-Chair elected by Board Members and two political-party nominees - internal inconsistency in describing Section 12[3].
The judgment does not give the petition case number; the caseNumber field is reconstructed from the description of the Amended Petition.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lekakimon v Speaker, County Assembly of Baringo & 2 others (Petition E010 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2394 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition amended on 8th August 2024 (Baringo County Assembly Service Board removal petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2394/eng@2025-08-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.