Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedPetition E014 of 2025· [2026] KEELRC 2637 (KLR)

Benard Oichoe Kinara & 18 Others v Maasai Mara University, The National Assembly & The Attorney General; Commission on Administrative Justice (Interested Party)

Employment & Labour Relations Court of Kenya
29 September 2026
5,541 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~22 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ordered Maasai Mara University to pay 19 former part-time lecturers their dues with interest, but ruled it cannot force Parliament to act.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Nineteen former part-time lecturers at Maasai Mara University's Kisii and Kilgoris campuses petitioned the ELRC at Kisii, alleging non-payment for services rendered between 2014 and 2016. They complained to the Commission on Administrative Justice in 2019; the Commission found a violation of Article 47, quantified the dues, and directed payment within twelve months. When the University did not comply, the Commission reported the matter to the National Assembly through its bi-annual report. The Petitioners sought declarations that the University's non-payment and the National Assembly's failure to act on the CAJ report violated Articles 10, 22, 27, 47, 59 and 95, mandamus against the National Assembly, general damages, costs and interest. The University denied employment and liability; the National Assembly contended no qualifying report under section 42(4) of the CAJ Act was submitted to it; the Commission defended its mandate. The Court held it lacks power to direct Parliament and that the CAJ letter before it was not the statutory report contemplated to trigger Parliament's duty; the suit against the National Assembly was dismissed with no order as to costs. Against the University, the Court found repeated abridgement of the right to fair administrative action under Article 47, adopted the itemized sums in the Petition as the amounts due to the 19 Petitioners, awarded interest at court rates from judgment, and ordered costs borne exclusively by the University.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the National Assembly was obliged to act on the CAJ report

Holding

The suit against the National Assembly was dismissed; no qualifying report under section 42(4) of the CAJ Act was shown to have been submitted to trigger its duty.

Reasoning

Section 42(4) of the CAJ Act requires the Commission to report a public body's non-compliance to the National Assembly, which then takes appropriate action. The Court found the letter before it was not the statutory report contemplated, and neither the Petitioners nor the Interested Party showed they triggered the steps for Parliament to consider the matter. The Court agreed with the 2nd Respondent's submissions and dismissed the suit against it.

p. 31
02

Whether the 1st Respondent violated the Petitioners' right to fair administrative action

Holding

Yes; the 1st Respondent repeatedly abridged the right to fair administrative action under Article 47 by delaying payment despite acknowledging the claims.

Reasoning

From the correspondence and the Interested Party's actions, the University acknowledged the claims, verified approximately 80% as genuine, undertook to pay, then relied on shifting explanations of record deficiencies and lack of funds. The Court held that although the Petitioners articulated the infringed rights inelegantly, the Article 47 right was repeatedly abridged, and the Petitioners only sought what they were entitled to.

p. 32
03

Quantum of the sums due to the Petitioners

Holding

The sums due from the 1st Respondent to the 19 Petitioners are as enumerated in Part III Para 4 of the Petition, with interest at court rates from the date of judgment.

Reasoning

The Court accepted the itemized figures in the Petition, listing individual amounts for each of the 19 Petitioners across the Kisii and Kilgoris campuses, and awarded interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full, with costs borne exclusively by the 1st Respondent.

p. 32

Legal principles established

#
  • The Court lacks power to direct Parliament; Parliament must be appropriately moved before it acts in public administration matters.
  • A letter from the CAJ that is not the report contemplated under statute cannot trigger Parliament's duty to act under section 42(4) of the CAJ Act.
  • A public body that repeatedly acknowledges claims and shifts positions on payment breaches the constitutional right to fair administrative action under Article 47.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Suit against the 2nd Respondent (National Assembly) dismissed with no order as to costs
  2. 2.Declaration that the sums due from the 1st Respondent to the 19 Petitioners are as enumerated in Part III Para 4 of the Petition
  3. 3.Interest on the sums awarded at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
  4. 4.Costs of the Petition to be borne exclusively by the 1st Respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Benard Oichoe Kinara & 18 Others v Maasai Mara University, The National Assembly & The Attorney General; Commission on Administrative Justice (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition E014 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2637/eng@2026-09-29

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