Automated Summary
Key Facts
The consolidated appeals involved the removal of the Chairperson and three members of Kakamega County Public Service Board. The appellants (Governor, County Government, County Secretary, and County Assembly) challenged the ELRC's jurisdiction over the matter. The respondents (removed board members) argued their removal via a December 2023 County Assembly vote violated constitutional procedures. The ELRC initially ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the removal process unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal overturned this, holding that the ELRC lacked jurisdiction as the dispute concerned constitutional office removal procedures governed by the High Court, not labor relations.
Issues
- The court examined if the appointment and removal of County Public Service Board members should be treated as labour issues under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. It concluded that these processes are governed by constitutional provisions (e.g., Article 251) and statutory frameworks (e.g., County Governments Act) and thus do not constitute employment disputes but rather constitutional matters requiring adjudication by the High Court.
- The court addressed whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) had jurisdiction to determine challenges related to the removal of the Chairperson and members of the County Public Service Board of Kakamega. The court emphasized that such matters, being constitutional in nature, fall outside the ELRC's jurisdiction as they pertain to the appointment and removal of constitutional office holders regulated by the Constitution, not employment disputes.
- The court considered whether jurisdictional issues could be raised at any stage of proceedings, including on appeal, even if not previously addressed. It affirmed that jurisdiction is a fundamental requirement that can be challenged at any time, as highlighted by precedents like Lemita Ole Lemein v Attorney General, reinforcing the primacy of jurisdictional validity in judicial processes.
Holdings
- A court must ensure it has jurisdiction to hear a matter at any stage of proceedings, including on appeal, even if not previously raised. This principle was emphasized to ensure the correct court handles the case.
- The High Court has unlimited subject matter jurisdiction to handle constitutional questions, making it the appropriate forum for disputes regarding the removal of county public service board members.
- The removal of county public service board members is governed by constitutional procedures under Article 251 and the County Governments Act, not employment disciplinary processes. The Evidence Act does not apply to such removal proceedings.
- The Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) does not have jurisdiction to determine matters related to the appointment and removal of county public service board members. These issues are constitutional in nature and must be addressed by the High Court under Article 165 of the Constitution. The ELRC's mandate is limited to employment and labour relations disputes as outlined in Section 12(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act.
Remedies
- Each party shall bear its own costs
- Consolidated appeals allowed to the extent that the ELRC did not have jurisdiction
- The ELRC's judgment was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing Kakamega ELRC Petition No. E008 of 2023
Legal Principles
- The Court of Appeal held that the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) lacks jurisdiction to determine constitutional disputes regarding the appointment and removal of county public service board members. Such matters are reserved for the High Court under Article 165 of the Constitution due to their constitutional nature, emphasizing the separation of powers between specialized courts and constitutional tribunals.
- The court applied judicial review principles to assess whether the ELRC's decision to entertain the petition was ultra vires its statutory jurisdiction. It concluded the ELRC erred by treating a constitutional matter as a labor dispute, violating the boundaries of its authority under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act.
Precedent Name
- Attorney General & 2 others v Okiya Omtata Okoiti & 14 others
- Lemita Ole Lemein v Attorney General, Land Registrar, Narok County & Lekinyot Ole Lanke
- Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
- County Assemblies Forum v Attorney General & 3 others; Parliamentary Service Commission (Interested Party)
Cited Statute
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (cap 8E)
- Constitution of Kenya
- Evidence Act (cap 80)
- County Governments Act (cap 265)
- Employment Act (cap 226)
Judge Name
- Hannah Okwengu
- H. A. Omondi
- Joel Ngugi
Passage Text
- What the Constitution and the statute envisaged was not an employment disciplinary hearing in order to remove the chair or a member of the county public service board. By making reference to article 251 of the Constitution, the statute was making clear that a constitutional process was intended.
- The dispute was about the appropriate constitutional and statutory procedures and thresholds for the removal of members of a county public service board. Implicated in that inquiry, was the question whether, for example, the Evidence Act had application to proceedings for the removal of members of the county assembly board or any constitutional body whose removal was regulated by article 251 of the Constitution.
- Constitutional controversies were to be heard by the High Court by dint of article 165 of the Constitution. The questions presented in the consolidated appeals did not fall within the meaning of disputes related to employment and labour relations and therefore, the ELRC did not have jurisdiction to deal with the petition before it.