Ogogoh v Coast Water Works Development Agency & 8 others; Tsuma & 5 others (Interested Parties) (Constitutional Petition E020 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2957 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court stopped salaries from being frozen but threw out documents a petitioner obtained unlawfully, showing how evidence is gathered matters.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Threshold for conservatory orders pending determination of the petition
The petitioner did not meet the threshold; stopping the officers' remuneration would not serve the ends of justice or the Agency's operations, and conservatory orders should not paralyze lawful institutional functions.
The court applied the Gatirau Peter Munya and Board of Management of Uhuru Secondary School tests requiring a prima facie case, enhancement of constitutional values and public interest. The contestations over PSC/SRC approvals and the institution-wide restructuring were matters for the main petition. Following CREAW, conservatory orders must prevent imminent constitutional violations, not suspend public officers performing essential functions; hence the application was dismissed with the petition to be heard on priority.
Admissibility and expungement of documents allegedly unlawfully obtained
The documents were irregularly acquired without compliance with the Access to Information Act procedure and certification requirements; admitting them would violate Article 50(4); they are expunged and inadmissible.
The court held access to information must be obtained lawfully, balancing Article 35 access with privacy rights (Njonjo Mue; David Ogolla Okoth). Although section 10(6) of the Employment Act places the duty to produce work records on the employer when sued, that duty belongs to the 1st respondent in its reply to the petition, and does not justify the petitioner's use of irregularly obtained records. Prior production in other suits does not sanitize the acquisition.
Legal principles established
#- Conservatory orders are granted on the basis of inherent merit, public interest, constitutional values and proportionality, not as a matter of course.
- Evidence obtained in violation of a right or fundamental freedom is inadmissible under Article 50(4) where admission would render the trial unfair or be detrimental to the administration of justice.
- Under section 10(6) of the Employment Act, the legal duty to produce work records rests on the employer once an employment dispute is filed.
- Production of the same documents in other proceedings does not cure their irregular acquisition.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 24 June 2025 (seeking conservatory orders staying payment of salaries, allowances, benefits and stipends to the 1st to 4th interested parties) is dismissed.
- 2.The application dated 18 July 2025 (seeking expungement of the impugned documents) is allowed.
- 3.The impugned documents are declared inadmissible and are expunged from the record.
- 4.The petition is to be heard on a priority basis.
- 5.Costs to abide by the outcome of the petition.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya (Supervisory Jurisdiction and Protection of Fundamental Freedom and Rights of Individuals) High Court Practice and Procedure Rules 2013, rules 13, 19 and 23; Articles 22, 23 and 50(4) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogogoh v Coast Water Works Development Agency & 8 others; Tsuma & 5 others (Interested Parties) (Constitutional Petition E020 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2957 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Petition and Notice of Motion dated 24 June 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2957/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.