[2019] KEELRC 689 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 689 (KLR)

The court found that the petitioner failed to provide any credible oral or documentary evidence to support his claim that he was interviewed and declared the winner for the position of Chief of Mwakibagendi West Location. The respondents, on the other hand, provided credible evidence, including a letter from the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 689 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Innocent Bosire; Respondent: Sub County Commissioner Marani Sub County; Respondent: Alfred Makori Omosa; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 17 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Public Service Appointments, Recruitment Process, Burden of Proof
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Public Service Appointments Recruitment Process Burden of Proof

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Innocent Bosire

Applicant

Sub County Commissioner Marani Sub County

Respondent

Alfred Makori Omosa

Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner was the rightful candidate for appointment as Chief of Mwakibagendi West Location.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents violated the petitioner.s constitutional rights in the recruitment process.
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner proved his case on a balance of probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioner failed to provide any credible oral or documentary evidence to support his claim that he was interviewed and declared the winner for the position of Chief of Mwakibagendi West Location. The respondents, on the other hand, provided credible evidence, including a letter from the Regional Coordinator, confirming that the 2nd respondent was the successful candidate and was duly appointed. The court held that the petitioner did not discharge the burden of proof required by law and failed to demonstrate any violation of his constitutional rights by the respondents. Consequently, the petition lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.