Saenas v Banticha (Sued as Purported Speaker) & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E182 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2430 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court struck out a challenge to Isiolo's Speaker, ruling the matter was already decided and belonged in the High Court, not the ELRC.
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 petition was res judicata
- 2.Whether the court had jurisdiction
Key legal issues
#Whether the petition was res judicata
Yes - the status of the 1st Respondent as gazetted Speaker was finally determined in Nairobi ELRC Petition No. E139 PF 2025 (Wasilwa J, 5th May 2026); the court is functus officio on the issue
Applying John Florence Maritime Services, the court found the legality, gazettement and tenure of the Speaker were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit, which was heard and finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. Justice Wasilwa had found at paragraph 126 that the 1st Respondent was gazetted as Speaker on 27/6/25 with no valid degazette notice or removal motion. Re-litigating that status would offend the doctrine of finality.
Whether the court had jurisdiction
No - the petitioner is not an employee or employer and comes purely in public interest; such disputes fall outside the ELRC's jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) and Section 12 of the ELRC Act
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital v Gikenyi, the court held that litigants acting in the public interest, not as employees, employers or trade union officials, cannot invoke the ELRC's jurisdiction. The petitioner was not an employee and did not represent any person purporting to be the Speaker. The dispute over the Speaker's office and County Assembly wrangles belongs to the High Court under Article 165(3)(b) and (d).
Legal principles established
#- Ingredients of res judicata: directly or substantially in issue in a former suit, same parties litigating under the same title, before a competent court that determined the suit finally
- A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law and cannot be raised where facts must be ascertained or discretion exercised
- Public-interest litigants who are neither employees nor employers cannot invoke the ELRC's jurisdiction; such disputes fall to the High Court under Article 165(3)(b) and (d)
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 23rd June 2026 by the respondents is upheld
- 2.The petition and the notice of motion dated 28th May 2026 are struck out on the basis of res judicata and for lack of jurisdiction
- 3.Each party to bear own costs in the matter
- 4.The file is marked as closed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, No. 20 of 2011
Relief refused
#Declaration that the 1st Respondent's assumption and continued execution of the roles of the Office of the Speaker is unlawful and unconstitutional
Petition res judicata and court lacking jurisdiction
Permanent injunction/restraining orders against the 1st Respondent performing Speaker's duties
Court functus officio on the status of the Speaker as determined in ELRC Petition No. E139 PF 2025; no jurisdiction
Orders directing the Clerk to lock out the 1st Respondent from financial authorization platforms
Petition struck out in its entirety
Costs
Each party to bear own costs in the matter.
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.
In the upshot, the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 23 rd June 2026 by the respondents is upheld. The petition and the notice of motion are struck on the basis of res judicata and, further, for lack of jurisdiction.
The petitioner filed the petition in the public interest. Each party to bear own costs in the matter.
The court finds that it has decided with finality that the 1st respondent is the gazetted speaker of the Isiolo County Assembly. The court is functus officio on the issue.
A preliminary objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent case number for the former suit: 'Milimani ELRC Petition No. E139 of 2025' in the objection versus 'Nairobi ELRC Petition No. E139 PF 2025' in the court's analysis
Objection dated 23rd June 2026 described in the heading as '2026' but the petition/application date and the prior judgment date (5th May 2026) create an unusual chronology for a 2026 filing
Mis Spelling of case name in the analysis: 'Governmnet press' versus 'Government Press' elsewhere
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Saenas v Banticha (Sued as Purported Speaker) & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E182 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2430 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Nairobi ELRC Petition No. E182 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2430/eng@2026-08-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.