[2025] KEELRC 1303 (KLR)

[2025] KEELRC 1303 (KLR)

The court found that the application for an order of prohibition was not merited because the recruitment process the Applicant sought to restrain had already concluded, and successful applicants had been appointed. Judicial review remedies, such as prohibition, cannot be issued in vain to stop actions that have...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELRC 1303 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Hared Sambul Abdi; Respondent: Garissa County Public Service Board; Respondent: County Government of Garissa
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E049 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice of Motion
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Employment Decisions, Recruitment Processes, Fair Administrative Action, Termination of Employment
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Judicial Review of Employment Decisions Recruitment Processes Fair Administrative Action Termination of Employment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hared Sambul Abdi

Applicant

Garissa County Public Service Board

Respondent

County Government of Garissa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice of Motion

  1. 1 Whether an order of prohibition can issue to restrain the Respondents from proceeding with recruitment after the process has concluded.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant and other aggrieved employees were entitled to reinstatement or protection of their positions pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents' recruitment process was unlawful, unfair, or tainted by nepotism and favouritism.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for an order of prohibition was not merited because the recruitment process the Applicant sought to restrain had already concluded, and successful applicants had been appointed. Judicial review remedies, such as prohibition, cannot be issued in vain to stop actions that have already been completed. Furthermore, the court noted that any grievances regarding alleged contempt or breach of previous court orders should be raised in the original proceedings (Petition E205 of 2022), not through a new judicial review application. The court also found no substantiated evidence of nepotism or favouritism in the recruitment process. Consequently, the application...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The judicial review application is dismissed.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.