Automated Summary
Key Facts
The petitioners (Waqo Komba Guyo and Shunuh Fatuma Gura) applied for assistant chief positions in Marsabit County. The respondents (County Commissioner Marsabit, Ministry of Interior, and Attorney General) altered recruitment qualifications mid-process, which the petitioners claimed favored specific candidates. The court dismissed the application, ruling the petitioners failed to meet initial requirements, did not reapply after re-advertisement, and could not establish a prima facie case for injunctive relief. The position was ultimately filled by Wako Abdub Boru in January 2021.
Issues
- Whether the petitioners satisfied the legal criteria for granting an injunction, including a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and a favorable balance of convenience. The respondents argued the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate the necessity for injunctive relief.
- Whether the respondents' re-advertisement of recruitment qualifications and alleged favoritism toward specific candidates violated the petitioners' constitutional rights to equality and fair treatment (Articles 47 and 48). The petitioners claimed the process was unfair, while the respondents denied discriminatory intent.
- The court's jurisdiction to address the petitioners' claims under Article 23(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which grants the High Court authority to hear applications for redress of rights violations. The respondents contested jurisdiction, arguing the court lacked authority to hear the petition.
Holdings
The court dismissed the application, concluding that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case for an injunction. The court ruled that the applicants did not meet the legal threshold for interim relief, as they did not demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or a balance of convenience favoring the grant of an injunction. The court further found the petitioners had not come to equity with clean hands due to undisclosed material facts and misrepresentation. The application was dismissed with costs to be borne by each party.
Remedies
- The court ordered that each party shall bear their own costs of the application.
- The court dismissed the application and directed that each party bears their own costs of the same.
Legal Principles
- The legal basis for the court's jurisdiction was Article 23(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which empowers the High Court to address applications for redress of rights violations. The court considered whether the respondents' actions were ultra vires or otherwise inconsistent with constitutional provisions.
- The court applied the principle of Natural Justice, particularly the 'clean hands' doctrine, noting that the petitioners had not approached the court with clean hands due to alleged misrepresentation and suppression of facts. The court cited the case of John Njue Nyaga v Nicholas Njiru Nyaga & Another (2013)eKLR to underscore this principle.
- The court applied the legal principles governing interim injunctions, requiring the applicant to establish a serious issue to be tried, demonstrate irreparable harm without the injunction, and show that the balance of convenience favors granting the remedy. These principles were derived from Giella vs Cassman Brown and Co.Ltd (1973) EA 358 and the Canadian case R.J.R. Macdonald vs Canada (Attorney General).
Precedent Name
- Paul Gitonga Wanjau v Gathuthi Tea Factory Company Ltd & 2 others
- Giella vs Cassman Brown and Co.Ltd
- R.J.R.Macdonald vs Canada (Attorney General)
- John Njue Nyaga v Nicholas Njiru Nyaga & Another
Cited Statute
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Judge Name
D.K. Njagi Marete
Passage Text
- a) The 1st and 2nd respondents have changed the goal posts at the midst of the recruitment exercise.b) The 1st and 2nd respondents' actions have raised eyebrows as they seem determined to favour particular candidates from particular communities.
- "23" The High court has jurisdiction in accordance with Article 165, to hear and determine applications for redress of a denial, violation of infringement of or in treat to a right or fundamental freedom in the bill of rights."
- I am therefore inclined to dismiss the application with orders that each party bears their costs of the same.