[2021] KEELRC 963 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 963 (KLR)

The court found that the 2nd and 3rd respondents were not properly represented when the interim orders were granted on 1st February 2021, as the advocate who appeared did not have their mandate. This amounted to a denial of their right to be heard as enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitution. Since the petitioners...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 963 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Eric Kiogora Murigu; Respondent: Nairobi City County Government; Respondent: Acting Governor Nairobi City County Government; Respondent: The Nairobi County Chief Officer Commerce and Industrialisation; Respondent: The Government Printer; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition E007 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Interim Orders and for Review
Outcome
application allowed; interim orders set aside; matter to proceed interpartes or on merits
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Right to Be Heard, Judicial Review, Appointment of Public Officers, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Administrative Law Right to Be Heard Judicial Review Appointment of Public Officers Procedural Fairness

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Kiogora Murigu

Applicant

Nairobi City County Government

Respondent

Acting Governor Nairobi City County Government

Respondent

The Nairobi County Chief Officer Commerce and Industrialisation

Respondent

The Government Printer

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Interim Orders and for Review

  1. 1 Whether the interim orders granted on 1st February 2021 should be set aside due to lack of representation for the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd and 3rd respondents were denied the right to be heard as required by Article 50 of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the application dated 18th January 2021 should be reopened for interpartes hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 2nd and 3rd respondents were not properly represented when the interim orders were granted on 1st February 2021, as the advocate who appeared did not have their mandate. This amounted to a denial of their right to be heard as enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitution. Since the petitioners did not respond to the application to set aside the orders, the respondents' assertions remained unchallenged. The court therefore allowed the application, set aside the interim orders, and directed that the matter proceed to interpartes hearing or prosecution of the petition on its merits.

Court Disposition

application allowed; interim orders set aside; matter to proceed interpartes or on merits

Orders

  • The application dated 5/2/2021 is allowed.
  • The interim orders granted on 1/2/2021 in favour of the petitioners/applicants in the application dated 18/1/2021 are set aside.