[2023] KEELRC 1281 (KLR)
The Employment and Labour Relations Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain petitions by county public service employees for unfair termination unless and until the appellate process before the Public Service Commission has been exhausted. The legal framework, specifically Article 234(2)(i) of the Constitution,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 1281 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Winnie Chepkemoi Bore; Applicant: Nyamota Fred Nyakango; Applicant: Kipkoech Joshua; Respondent: County Government of Nyamira; Interested Party: Paul Makonge
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition E004 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Jurisdictional Objection
- Outcome
- petition struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- S Radido
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Public Service Commission Appeals, Exhaustion of Remedies, Jurisdiction of Elrc
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Winnie Chepkemoi Bore
Applicant
Nyamota Fred Nyakango
Applicant
Kipkoech Joshua
Applicant
County Government of Nyamira
Respondent
Paul Makonge
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Jurisdictional Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to hear a petition for unfair termination by county public service employees before exhaustion of the Public Service Commission appellate process.
- 2 Whether the petitioners were required to first appeal to the Public Service Commission before approaching the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The Employment and Labour Relations Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain petitions by county public service employees for unfair termination unless and until the appellate process before the Public Service Commission has been exhausted. The legal framework, specifically Article 234(2)(i) of the Constitution, section 77 of the County Governments Act, and section 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act, mandates that such disputes must first be appealed to the Public Service Commission. There was no evidence that the petitioners had pursued or exhausted this appellate remedy. Consequently, the court declined jurisdiction and struck out the petition.
Court Disposition
petition struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The petition is struck out.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
Bore & 2 others v County Government of Nyamira; Makonge (Interested Party) (Petition E004 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1281 (KLR) (24 May 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 1281 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Petition E004 of 2023
S Radido, J
May 24, 2023
(Originally Kericho Petition No. E001 of 2021) IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 23, 27, 28, 29, 41 AND 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES, 2013 AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 5, 44, 45, 46, 49 AND 50 OF THE EMPLOYMENT ACT NO. 11 OF 2007 AND IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION AND THREATENED VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER (INTER ALIA) ARTICLES 27, 28, 29, 41 AND 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 BETWEEN
Between
Winnie Chepkemoi Bore
1st Petitioner
Nyamota Fred Nyakango
2nd Petitioner
Kipkoech Joshua
3rd Petitioner
and
County Government of Nyamira
Respondent
and
Paul Makonge
Interested Party
Ruling
1. Wiinie Chepkemoi Bore, Nyamota Fred Nyakango and Kipkoech Joshua (the Petitioners) sued the County Government of Nyamira (Respondent) on January 30, 2023, contending that the Respondent unfairly terminated their employment contracts on an undisclosed date.
2. Filed with the Petition was a Motion under a certificate of urgency.
3. The Court directed the Petitioners to serve the Motion for inter-partes hearing on February 13, 2023. The Petitioners failed to attend the hearing and the Motion was dismissed.
4. Upon the dismissal, the Petitioners filed another Motion seeking similar orders. The Court directed that the Motion and Petition be heard together and that service be effected ahead of the giving of further directions on March 27, 2023 (the Respondent filed a Memorandum of Appearance on the said date but did not attend the virtual session).
5. On March 27, 2023, the Court directed the parties to address whether it had jurisdiction in light of Article 2343(2)(i) of the Constitution as read with section 77 of the County Governments Act and section 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act.
6. Despite the directions, the Petitioners’ submissions were not on record by the agreed timeline of April 14, 2023.
7. Nevertheless, the Court will proceed to determine whether it has jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction 8. The cause of action advanced by the Petitioners is unfair termination of employment by the Respondent on a date which is not disclosed.
9. From the pleadings, it is not in doubt that the Petitioners were employees within the county public service of Nyamira.
10. By dint of Article 234(2)(i) of the Constitution as read with section 77(1) and (2) of the County Governments Act and section 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Service Act, the Petitioners first port of call should have been through an appeal to the Public Service Commission of Kenya.
11. Since the legal framework has given the Public Service Commission the mandate to deal with appeals from decisions of a county public service board or the county government with respect to disciplinary control or other removal from service, the Court’s jurisdiction cannot be invoked unless and until the exhaustion of the appellate jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission.
12. The Court of Appeal had occasion to consider the implication of section 77 of the County Governments Act in Secretary, County Public Service Board and Ar vs Hulbhan Gedi Abdille (2017) eKLR where it stated as follows:There is no doubt that the Respondent initiated the judicial review proceedings in utter disregard to the dispute resolution mechanism availed by Section 77 of the Act. The Section provides not the only forum through which the Respondent could agitate her grievance at first instance, but the jurisdiction thereof is a specialized one specifically tailored by the legislators to meet needs such as the Respondent’s. In our view, the most suitable and appropriate recourse for the Respondent was to invoke the appellate procedure under the Act rather than resort to the judicial process in the instance.
13. On the other hand, section 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act, 2017 expressly outlaws first-instance court proceedings before the appellate procedures have been exhausted.
14. There is nothing on record to suggest the Petitioners exhausted the appellate procedures aforesaid.
Conclusion and Orders 15. In consideration of the foregoing, the Court declines jurisdiction.
16. The Petition is struck out with no orders on costs.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED, AND SIGNED IN KISUMU ON THIS 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023. RADIDO STEPHEN, MCIARBJUDGEAppearancesFor Petitioner Chege & Sang Co AdvocatesFor Respondents County Attorney, County of NyamiraCourt Assistant Chrispo Aura