Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition dated 7th April 2025· [2025] KEELRC 2535 (KLR)

Mohammed v County Secretary, Nakuru & 3 others; Kiprono (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2535 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 September 2025
1,369 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed a third party's petition over a county job dispute, ruling he had no capacity to sue and hadn't used required appeal channels.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, Abdullahi Mohammed, a citizen and resident of Nakuru County, applied pending hearing of his Petition for a temporary injunction restraining the 4th Respondent from exercising duties, executing documents and issuing communications as County Director Land and Physical Planning. He alleged the 1st Respondent's circular of 31st October 2023 unmeritedly posted the 4th Respondent to that position while demoting the Interested Party, the Director, Land and Physical Planning, Nakuru County, who had been competitively appointed on 27th June 2014. The Interested Party supported the application through a replying affidavit. The Respondents raised a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 24th April 2025, contending the Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution, that the Petitioner lacked capacity, and that the Petition was premature for failure to exhaust dispute resolution mechanisms under Section 77(2) of the County Governments Act and Section 87 of the Public Service Commission Act. The Court found the dispute concerned contractual rights between an employer and employee, not public interest; that the Interested Party had personally pursued his contractual rights without showing any incapacity; that the Petitioner, being a stranger to the employment contracts, had no capacity to enforce them; and that neither the Interested Party nor his proxy had exhausted the grievance mechanisms under the Public Service Commission Act and County Governments Act. While the E&LRC has jurisdiction over such matters, that jurisdiction can only be invoked after exhausting the primary statutory mechanisms. The Preliminary Objection was sustained, the Petition and Application declined, with no order on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Capacity of the Petitioner to prosecute the Petition on behalf of himself, the public and the Interested Party

Holding

The Petitioner lacks capacity; the Interested Party showed no incapacity to pursue the dispute in his own name, and the dispute is essentially private contractual interest, not public interest

Reasoning

The Interested Party had already personally pursued his contractual rights by protesting to the 2nd Respondent and the Chief Officer. The Petitioner is not privy to the employment contracts, cannot speak to their terms, and did not exhibit the 4th Respondent's contract. The confidential appointment letter highlights the private nature of the terms of service involved.

p. 3
02

Exhaustion of statutory dispute resolution mechanisms

Holding

Neither the Interested Party nor his proxy the Petitioner exhausted the grievance mechanisms under the Public Service Commission Act and the County Governments Act before approaching the Court

Reasoning

Section 85 of the Public Service Commission Act requires public servants to first appeal a decision of their employer to the Public Service Commission before approaching the Court, with procedure laid down in the Public Service (County Appeals Procedures), 2022. Section 77 of the County Governments Act requires appeals to the Public Service Commission on employment issues. The E&LRC's jurisdiction can only be invoked after these primary mechanisms are exhausted.

p. 4
03

Jurisdiction of the E&LRC in the dispute

Holding

The E&LRC has jurisdiction over the matters in dispute, but that jurisdiction can only be invoked after exhausting the primary statutory mechanisms

Reasoning

The Respondents argued the Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 162(2). The Court found jurisdiction exists but is conditioned on exhaustion of the statutory appeal mechanisms to the Public Service Commission under the two Acts of Parliament.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Disputes concerning contractual rights and obligations between an employer and employee are private contractual interests which should be pursued by the parties to the contract, not convoluted through third parties into constitutional disputes
  • A party must exhaust statutory grievance and dispute resolution mechanisms under the Public Service Commission Act and County Governments Act before invoking the E&LRC's jurisdiction
  • A person not privy to a contract of employment has no capacity to enforce it or speak to its terms

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection is sustained
  2. 2.The Petition and the Application are declined
  3. 3.No order on the costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution (jurisdiction objection raised); Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction invoked subject to exhaustion of statutory dispute resolution mechanisms

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.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mohammed v County Secretary, Nakuru & 3 others; Kiprono (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2535 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 7th April 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2535/eng@2025-09-26

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.