Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves an appeal regarding the Employment and Labour Relations Court's (ELRC) jurisdiction to handle recruitment, selection, and appointment disputes in county governments. The applicant, Kenneth Odongo, argued that the ELRC had authority over these matters as a public interest issue. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, ruling that no employment contract existed between the parties, the applicant lacked standing, and the dispute did not meet constitutional thresholds for general public importance. The court also found no contradictory precedents or jurisprudential uncertainty to warrant Supreme Court certification.
Issues
- The court considered if the applicant had the legal standing to bring the case before the ELRC as a public interest litigant, referencing Articles 23 and 258 of the Constitution and related procedural rules. The applicant argued this was a public interest matter, while the respondents disputed this.
- The court assessed if the lower court showed bias by holding the applicant liable for costs of the appeal and petition. The applicant claimed this was prejudiced, while the respondents denied any bias.
- The court addressed whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act's Section 12(1) was correctly applied by the lower court, particularly the use of the terms 'for connected purposes' in the preamble and the word 'including' in the section. The applicant claimed misinterpretation of these provisions.
- The court was asked to determine if the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) has jurisdiction to entertain disputes related to recruitment, selection, nomination, and appointment of employees when no formal contract of employment exists between the parties. The applicant argued the ELRC should have jurisdiction over such matters, while the respondents contended otherwise.
- The court was asked to review the application of Sections 77, 85, and 87 of the County Governments Act regarding the legality of the 29th October 2022 nominations for county chief officers. The applicant argued the lower court's application of these sections was erroneous.
- The court examined whether the interpretation of Section 77 of the County Governments Act, which governs the Governor's role in appointments, was correctly applied in the impugned judgment. The applicant claimed the lower court's interpretation was flawed.
Holdings
- The application was dismissed as it lacked merit, with each party to bear their own costs.
- The court found no substantial issue of law or matter affecting the general public interest in the application.
Remedies
- The court ordered that each party bear their respective costs associated with the proceedings.
- The application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal at Nakuru on 15th December 2023, as it was found to lack merit. The court ruled that the applicant did not demonstrate a matter of general public importance warranting certification for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Principles
- The court ruled it was functus officio, meaning it could not revisit the matter to grant stay orders once the appeal had been finalized. This principle was supported by precedents like Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda.
- The ruling emphasized that for a matter to be certified as of general public importance, it must demonstrate significant bearing on public interest, not merely involve a constitutional trajectory. The court cited Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gneccbi-Ruscone, holding that such certification requires showing the issue affects the broader community and involves a substantial point of law.
- The court found the applicant lacked standing to institute proceedings in the ELRC, noting no contract of employment existed between the applicant and the nominees. This aligned with the impugned judgment's conclusion that the dispute did not fall under employment and labour relations jurisdiction.
- The court held the applicant's petition was premature for failing to exhaust administrative processes outlined in Sections 77 and 87 of the County Governments Act, which mandate resolution through established channels before judicial intervention.
Precedent Name
- Republic v Karisa Chengo & 2 others
- Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda
- Benson Makori Makworo v Nairobi Metropolitan Services & 2 others
- Okiya Omotabu Okoiti v Attorney General
- Dickson Muricho Muriuki v Timothy Kagondu Muriuki & 6 others
- Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 2 Others v Attorney General & 4 others
- Malcolm Bell v Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi & Another
- Evans Ladtema Muswabili v Vibiga County Public Service Board & 2 others
- Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gneccbi-Ruscone
- Goldenlime International Limited v Bluesea Shopping Mall Limited & 3 others
- Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Nakuru Water and Sanitation Services Company & Another
Cited Statute
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
- Constitution of Kenya
- County Government Act
- Public Appointments (County Assemblies Approvals) Act
Judge Name
- WK Korir
- FA Ochieng
- MSA Makhandia
Passage Text
- 27. This court held that the ELRC did not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter, as no contract of employment had been entered into between the County Government and the nominees, and the dispute was not an employment and labour dispute in nature; there was no employer-employee relationship between the applicant and any of the respondents, and therefore the applicant lacked the locus to institute the proceedings; and that the 6th respondent did not act in isolation but together with the 4th respondent, hence Sections 77 and 87 of the County Government Act were applicable, and the petition was premature for failing to exhaust the mechanisms provided therein.
- 33. In the result, we find that the application lacks merit and it is dismissed. Each party is to bear their costs.
- 30. In this instance, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the court's reasoning took a trajectory that warrants constitutional interpretation.