[2024] KEELRC 1326 (KLR)

[2024] KEELRC 1326 (KLR)

The court found that the petition was not justiciable as the main subject of the dispute—the appointment of the 2nd respondent as acting Vice Chancellor—had been overtaken by events, with the 2nd respondent having been replaced prior to judgment. The petitioner failed to amend the petition to reflect this change or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELRC 1326 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Vincent Suyianka Lempaa; Respondent: Council of Maasai Mara University; Respondent: Onyango Kiche Magak; Respondent: Attorney General; Respondent: Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Employment and Labour Relations Petition E182 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Unlawful Appointment, University Governance, Locus Standi, Judicial Review, Public Office Qualification
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unlawful Appointment University Governance Locus Standi Judicial Review Public Office Qualification

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincent Suyianka Lempaa

Applicant

Council of Maasai Mara University

Respondent

Onyango Kiche Magak

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the petition is spent and therefore not justiciable.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petition was not justiciable as the main subject of the dispute—the appointment of the 2nd respondent as acting Vice Chancellor—had been overtaken by events, with the 2nd respondent having been replaced prior to judgment. The petitioner failed to amend the petition to reflect this change or to join the new acting Vice Chancellor as a party. Furthermore, the petition did not specify the constitutional provisions allegedly violated or the manner of their violation, falling short of the threshold established in Mumo Matemu. The court held that the petition disclosed no actionable cause and amounted to an abuse of process. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed for...

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • The petition is dismissed for lack of merit and as an abuse of the court process.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the suit.