Kibor v County Public Service Board Uasin Gishu County & 2 others (Petition E010 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3720 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Preliminary Objection on failure to exhaust alternative remedies was merited
Dismissed - the Petition raises constitutional questions falling within the Court's jurisdiction under Articles 22, 23 and 165, and determination would require interrogating evidence
The Court applied the Mukisa Biscuit definition and held the objection required factual inquiry. It found the challenge went to constitutionality of the entire recruitment process, including national values and Chapter Six, matters within its jurisdiction; hence the exhaustion doctrine was not a bar at this stage.
Whether a prima facie case for conservatory orders was established
A prima facie case was established, but conservatory orders were refused because the vetting process is incomplete and the County Assembly's vetting role should not be judicially interrupted
The Court accepted the allegations disclosed arguable constitutional questions. However, section 8 of the County Governments Act vests vetting in the County Assembly; the same grounds can be raised there; separation of powers requires deference; and the Court retains power to nullify any unconstitutional appointments afterwards.
Prematurity under section 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act
The application was premature because the recruitment process had not concluded and the Petitioner did not seek exemption under section 9(4)
The Court reproduced section 9 of FAAA and held that courts should allow statutorily provided processes to conclude before intervening; no exemption application had been made. Public interest in constituting the City Board in Eldoret's formative stage also weighed against halting recruitment.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law and is inappropriate where contested facts or exercise of discretion are required
- The doctrine of exhaustion does not apply where the dispute raises pure constitutional questions or the impugned process is alleged to be unconstitutional ab initio
- Under section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act a court shall not review an administrative action unless internal mechanisms and remedies under other written law are first exhausted
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 6th October 2025 is dismissed
- 2.The application dated 17th September 2025 is dismissed
- 3.Costs of both the Notice of Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion shall abide the outcome of the Petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23 and 165 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kibor v County Public Service Board Uasin Gishu County & 2 others (Petition E010 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3720 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition (Notice of Motion dated 17th September 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3720/eng@2025-12-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.