Consumer Federation of Kenya v Cabinet Secretary FR Energy and Petroleum & 4 others

section 22(3) of the Government Owned Enterprises Act, 2025 and not an employer-employee or labour relations dispute contemplated under article 162(2) (a) of the Constitution and section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. 5. b. The issues raised in the petition fall under the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 165(3) (d) of the Constitution. c. The petition is therefore incompetent and misconceived in law and ought to be struck out with costs. The objections by the 2nd and 3rd respondents: 1. The petition and application dated 11 May 2026 are incurably defective, a sham and incapable of sustaining judicial consideration. 2. The petition and the application are premised entirely upon the Supporting Adavit of Stephen Mutoro together with the annexures thereto, which constitute the sole evidential foundation upon which the reliefs sought are anchored. 3. Rule 11 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 expressly provides that where a party wishes to rely on any document, such document shall be annexed to the Supporting Adavit or petition. Therefore, any annexures intended to support the petition must constitute competent and admissible adavit evidence. 4. The said adavit was commissioned in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules, made pursuant to the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, in that the annexures thereto were neither securely sealed under the seal of the Commissioner for Oaths nor marked with serial letters of identication as expressly required. 5. Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules is couched in mandatory terms and provides as follows: All exhibits and adavits shall be securely sealed under the seal of the Commissioner and shall be marked with serial letters of identication. 6. The use of the term “shall” under Rule 9 denotes a mandatory statutory obligation, leaving no discretion as to compliance with the requirements relating to sealing and marking of annexures to adavits. 7. That non-compliance with Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules is fatal to the validity of an adavit. Consequently, the court should expunge the adavit, together with its annexures, from the record, as held in Kenya National Union of Nurses v Kiambu County Public Service & 5 others [2019] eKLR. 8. The failure to securely seal and serialise annexures to an adavit is not a mere procedural technicality curable under Article 159(2) (d) of the Constitution, but a substantive defect that renders the adavit incompetent. See Mabel Imbuga v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology & another [2021] eKLR. 9. Upon expunging the Supporting Adavit together with the defective annexures thereto, the petition and Notice of Motion are left without any competent evidence substratum and are consequently unsustainable in law. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2060/eng@2026-07-16 2

page 2 of 6

10. In light of the foregoing, the petition dated 11 May 2026 and the Notice of Motion of even date are incomplete, an abuse of court process and ought to be struck out with costs. 6. The 1st and 4th respondents submitted that under Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules, all exhibits should be secured under the seal of the Commissioner and should be marked for identication. This Rule is mandatory and does not give discretion to the party when ling exhibits. In Kenya National Union of Nurses v Kiambu County Public Service Board & 5 others [2019] eKLR, the court considered the eect of failing to comply with Rule 9 and held that the use of the word “shall” denotes there is no discretion. The oending adavit used by the petitioner in support of the application and petition is not compliant with Rule 9 and should be struck o. The petition is left bare as held in Mabel Imbuga v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology [2021] eKLR. 7. On jurisdiction, the respondents submitted that the petitioner is not in an employment relationship as contemplated under Article 162(2) (a) of the Constitution or Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. Without such a foundation, the ing of the petition herein denies the court the requisite jurisdiction. In Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital & 3 others v Gikenyi B & 152 others Civil Appeal E107 & E116 of 2024 (consolidated) [2025] KECA, the court held that in questioning the legality of pre-employment procedures and processes undertaken by a prospective employer, such a matter falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court and not the court. 8. The petitioner challenges the appointment of the interested party. There is no employment relationship; hence, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, and the matter should be struck out. 9. The 2nd and 3rd respondents submitted and supported the objections of the 1st and 4th respondents that under Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declaration Rules, all adavits led in support of the petition must be sealed by the Commissioner. Such a requirement is mandatory. It cannot be cured through the application of Article 159 of the Constitution. The law regulates the ling of adavits; hence, the petitioner's failure to comply with the Rules renders the petition invalid and should be struck out. 10. The respondents submitted that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition. 11. In Public Service Commission & 4 others v Cheruiyot & 20 others Civil Appeal 119 & 139 of 2017 (consolidated) [2022] KECA, the court held that the Employment and Labour Relations Court has no jurisdiction to hear a petition premised on the breach of a party’s fundamental rights under the Constitution. The alleged constitutional breaches must be ancillary and incidental to the matters contemplated under section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. Any proceedings therefrom, without jurisdiction, are null and void. 12. The petition is premised on a challenge to the intended recruitment and appointment of the 3rd respondent's managing director and chief executive ocer. The petitioner therefore challenges the application of section 22(3) of the Government Owned Enterprises Act with regard to the prescribed qualications for the appointment of such an ocer. There is therefore no employment relationship between the parties. This denies the court jurisdiction. The preliminary objections by the respondent are with merit and should be allowed, and the petition struck out. 13. The petitioner submitted that the court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition, as it challenges the interpretation of section 22(3) of the Government Owned Enterprises Act, which relates to the employment and qualications of the interested party. The substantive issues in dispute are the eligibility of the interested party; the criteria governing eligibility for appointment; access to public employment; fair competition in recruitment; constitutional integrity in public appointment; and the legality of the recruitment process. These are matters that fall https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2060/eng@2026-07-16 3

page 3 of 6

within the application of article 162(2) (a) of the constitution and section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act. In United States International University (USIU) v Attorney General & others (interested party) [2012] eKLR, the court recognised that employment disputes, including recruitment and appointment to public oce, are, under Article 165(5) of the Constitution, removed from the jurisdiction of the High Court. 14. The objections thus made by the respondent with regard to jurisdiction are without merit and should be dismissed. The petitioner submitted that the alleged defective adavit is not fatal and such procedural lapses can be cured. The petition raises substantive issues concerning public recruitment, the legality of administrative action, access to public oce and constitutional governance. The dispute is therefore not solely founded on the annexures to the adavit. The petition can be adjudicated independently of the alleged defects. 15. Article 159 of the Constitution obligates courts to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. In Likowa v Aluochier & 2 others [2025] eKLR, the court held that the common practice under the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules is to le an adavit in support of every petition. However, the procedure is not mandatory. 16. The petition is led under the provisions of articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution, hence giving the petitioner proper standing before the court. The objections are without merit and should be dismissed to allow the petition to be heard. Determination 17. The respondents raise preliminary objections on two fundamental issues; i. Whether the non-compliance with Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules is fatal and hence the standing of the petitioner. ii. Whether the court lacks jurisdiction on the basis that there is no employment relationship between the parties. 18. Indeed, Rue 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules, which is based on the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, is couched in mandatory terms. An adavit sworn in support of an application and a petition should be commissioned, and, where there are annexures and exhibits, they should be sealed and numbered or coded for identication. 19. The petitioner does not deny that the adavit in support of the application and petition, both dated 11 May 2026, are not sealed, and that the annexed exhibits are not marked with identiers. The petitioner asserts that such lapse can be cured under Article 159 of the Constitution, as this is a technicality. The substantive issues are well articulated in the adavit. 20. Indeed, the ling of a constitutional petition, as done herein by the petitioner, is governed by the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules. A petition regulated under such Rules must be secured through a Supporting Adavit. 21. The nature of the adavit to be led is in terms of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act and the Rules thereto. Therefore, under Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules, the adavit must comply with the requirements thereto. Otherwise, the probative value of such a document is lost. Such cannot be cured through the application of. Article 159 of the Constitution, where the adavit to be applied is already dened under the law. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2060/eng@2026-07-16 4

page 4 of 6

22. The adavit by the petitioner in support of the petition and notice of motion dated 11 May 2026 is invalid. The petition and the notice of motion lacked a foundation and are thus struck out. 23. While the matter was pending determination, new developments and a judgment were delivered in Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital & 3 others v Gikenyi & 74 others [2026] KESC 50 (KLR). The Supreme Court has dened the mandate of the court, but excludes persons who are human rights activists, patriotic citizens of Kenya, law-abiding citizens, public-spirited individuals, and human rights defenders. Under paragraph 73, the Supreme Court held: The 1st to 7th respondents described themselves in the High Court Petition as human rights activist, patriotic citizens of Kenya, law-abiding citizens, public- spirited individuals, and human rights defenders. They did not petition the High Court on behalf of any applicant for the positions of CEO or MD of the four parastatals. We reiterate, they were acting in the public interest. 24. The rationale is that the petitioners before the High Court did not plead on behalf of those who applied for the challenged positions of CEOs or managing directors and were not successful to fall within the jurisdiction of the court as employees, employers, trade union ocials, employers’ federation ocials, prospective employees, persons seeking employment, Cabinet Secretaries, applicants for employment, or persons aggrieved by a decision of the Director of Employment. Hence, without such dened persons or entities: The 1st to 7th respondents’ petition points to alleged constitutional violations in respect of ethnic and gender considerations in the employment process, the marginalization and discrimination of women and people with disability. Nowhere do they plead on behalf of those who applied for CEO or MD positions and were not successful. The respondents moved the High Court for the vindication of the alleged breach of specied constitutional rights. The dispute as presented and prosecuted was clearly not one of private law between an employer and employee, but one implicating a contest in the public law regime between citizens and state organs concerning alleged constitutional violations. Those questions could and can only be properly raised for determination before the High Court under Article 165(3)(b) and (d) of the Constitution. 25. The matter reverted back to the High Court. 26. Whereas the court has exclusive jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes pursuant to article 162(2) (a) and 165(5) (b) of the Constitution, and the petition herein relates to the challenged appointment to the oce of the CEO of a government-owned enterprise, the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is dened as a registered public interest consumer rights and accountability organization. The petitioner thus has no dened employee, employer, trade union ocial, employers’ federation ocial, prospective employee, person seeking employment, applicant for employment, or person aggrieved by a decision of the Director of Employment in relation to any respondent herein. 27. In the past, I have expressed a contrary view from the one postulated by the Supreme Court on the subject of jurisdiction, on the appreciation that the core issue(s) addressed by the petitioner go to the root of an employment relationship and under article 22 and 258 of the Constitution, the entity of the petitioner can litigate and ventilate such matters before the court particularly in terms of article 165(5)(b) of the Constitution. The prominent issue being employment. However, I am bound by the Supreme Court's latest position on the matter in Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital & 3 others v Gikenyi & 74 others [2026] KESC 50 (KLR). https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2060/eng@2026-07-16 5

page 5 of 6

28. The upshot is that the instant petition leaves the court without jurisdiction. The respondents' objections, although premised on dierent grounds, are thus addressed. The petition is struck out. Taking into account the recent developments in law, each party shall bear its costs. DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 16TH DAY OF JULY 2026 M. MBARŨ JUDGE In the presence of: Court Assistant: Kemboi ……………………………………………… and …………………………………..……… ELRC NAIROBI RULING PETITION NO. E153 OF 2026 4 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2060/eng@2026-07-16 6

page 6 of 6