Eskimos Kobia & 2 Others v County Government of Nakuru & 4 Others
The bottom line
#Minor procedural errors in county recruitment processes are generally not enough to overturn the entire hiring process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction over county recruitment processes despite separation of powers
The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 165(3)(d), including inquiries into the devolved legislature and county executive
The court relied on Mumo Matemu, which held that while courts must defer to the independence of the legislature and give the Executive latitude, courts retain an interpretive role including the last word on constitutionality of governmental actions. Article 165(3)(d)(i)-(ii) vests jurisdiction over constitutional interpretation and inconsistency of governmental actions with the Constitution.
Whether the recruitment exercise followed due process under the UACA and UACAA
Substantial compliance with the then-extant UACA was shown; the slight irregularity regarding section 14(2)(a)-(c) UACAA minutes did not amount to substantive procedural impropriety
The recruitment commenced under the UACA 2011 regime, which was in force until 27th March 2019. The Amendment Act commenced 28th March 2019, mid-process. Requiring a restart would be impracticable and unfair where there had been full compliance with the extant law. The failure to avail signed minutes under the new section 14(2) was a slight irregularity not warranting nullification.
Whether the petition met the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold
The petition failed to identify any constitutional provisions violated; it was not substantively a constitutional petition
Although the petition's title invoked Articles 21, 22, 23, 35, 232 and 235, no paragraph identified constitutional provisions allegedly breached; the violations alleged concerned the County Governments Act, the Public Appointments (County Assembly Approval) Act and a Bill.
Costs
Petitioners to bear 20% of respondents' costs; the 1st petitioner participated in the process and the petition raised no constitutional issues
The court exercised discretion under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, noting the petitioners lost, the 1st petitioner fully participated in the recruitment without complaint, and the petition raised no constitutional issues. The respondents did not argue absence of public interest, which could have attracted different treatment.
Legal principles established
#- The High Court has jurisdiction under Article 165(3)(d) to determine the constitutionality or legality of county appointments notwithstanding separation of powers
- A claimant challenging an appointment process must show substantive defects, fundamental omissions or extraneous considerations rendering the process unconstitutional
- A petition invoking constitutional articles but alleging no constitutional violations in its body is not substantively a constitutional petition
Court orders
#- 1.All prayers sought by the petitioners declined
- 2.Petitioners to bear 20% of the respondents' party and party costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 165(3)(d) of the Constitution - original and unlimited jurisdiction to hear questions of constitutional interpretation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Eskimos Kobia & 2 Others v County Government of Nakuru & 4 Others", Case Analysis (2020). Petition (Naivasha) dated 9th April 2019. Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.