Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

OPONDO OGENYA KAKENDO v THE HON ATTORNEY GENERAL & 5 others

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT SIAYA CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 22 OF 2019 (CORAM: HON. R.E. ABURILI - J) IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FORMER CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 1969 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARMED FORCES ACT NO. 60 OF 1968 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE KENYA DEFENCE FORCE ACT NO. 25 OF 2015 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PRISONS ACT (CAP 90 LAWS OF KENYA) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES, 2013 BETWEN OPONDO OGENYA KAKENDO...........................................................PETITIONER VERSUS THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL & 5 OTHERS.........................RESPONDENT RULING 1. I have considered the Constitutional petition dated 12 th June 2019 and the supporting affidavit. I note that the claim is a purely Employment and Labour Relations matter governed by Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. 2. Article 165(5)(b) of the Constitution expressly bars this court from hearing and determining disputes exclusively reserved for the specialized courts established or contemplated in Article 162(2) of the Constitution. 3. For the above reasons, I find this Petition misplaced as this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the same. I must therefore down my tools and strike out the Petition which should have been filed before Employment and Labour Relations Court. It is hereby struck out.

page 1 of 2

4. I make no orders as to costs. File closed. Dated, signed and Delivered at Siaya, this 22nd Day of July 2019. R.E. ABURILI JUDGE

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.