https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1348

Mwera v Kinoti, Director General Kenya Urban Roads Authority & 4 others (Petition E021 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 1348 (KLR) (15 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1348 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Petition E021 of 2026 JW Keli, J May 15, 2026 Between Abigael Mwera Petitioner and Silas Murira Kinoti, Director General Kenya Urban Roads Authority 1st Respondent The Board of Directors kenya Urban Roads Authority 2nd Respondent The cabinet Secretary, Ministry for roads And Transport 3rd Respondent Ethics And Anti-Corruption Commission 4th Respondent Chief Of Staff & Head Of Public Service 5th Respondent Ruling 1.The Petitioner was a Kenyan citizen who alleged acts of corruption and abuse of office against the 1st respondent vide a petition dated 21st January 2026 filed in the court seeking for the following Orders:-i.A Declaration that the 1st Respondent, Silas Murira Kinoti, has violated the Constitution of Kenya, the Leadership and Integrity Act, the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, and other applicable statutes through gross mismanagement, abuse of office, and unethical conduct.ii.A Declaration that the 1st Respondent is unfit to hold public office under Chapter Six of the Constitution of Kenya.An Order of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent and the 3rd Respondent to remove the 1st Respondent from office forthwith.iv.An Order directing the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) to investigate the procurement irregularities, land disposals, and financial mismanagements at the Kenya Urban Roads Authority during the 1st Respondent's tenure.v.Costs of this Petition.vi.Any other relief that this Honourable Court may deem just and appropriate. 2.The petition was accompanied by a Notice of Motion dated 21st January 2026 seeking for the following conservatory orders --a.This Application be certified urgent and heard ex parte in the first instance due to the public interest and constitutional violations disclosed herein.b.A temporary conservatory order do issue restraining Silas Murira Kinoti, the 1st Respondent herein from exercising any powers, functions and/or duties of the Director General of the Kenya Urban Roads Authority, pending the hearing and determination of this Application.c.A temporary conservatory order do issue suspending Silas Murira Kinoti, the 1st Respondent the office and position of Director General of the Kenya Urban Roads Authority pending the hearing and determination of this Application.d.A conservatory order restraining the 1st Respondent from exercising any powers, functions, or duties of the Director General of the Kenya Urban Roads Authority, do issue pending the hearing and determination of the Petition herein. 3.The Application and Petition were supported by the petitioner’s affidavit 21st January 2026 and exhibits of EACC file No. EACC/F1/InQ./31/2025 and (Am-1) and Auditor General Reports as (Am-2). 4.In response the 1st, 3rd and 5th respondents filed grounds of opposition dated 2nd March 2026, further the office of the AG filed Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 2nd March 2026. The 1st Respondent further instructed their own Advocate and raised a Notice of Preliminary Objection. The gist of both notices was that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. 5.The petition was canvassed by way of written submission. The court considered the position of the parties. 6.The jurisdiction of the court is as stated in Article 162 of the Constitution-“ 162.(1)The superior courts are the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the courts referred to in clause (2). (2) Parliament shall establish courts with the status of the High Court to hear and determine disputes relating to— (a) employment and labour relations; and (b) the environment and the use and occupation of, and title to, land. (3) Parliament shall determine the jurisdiction and functions of the courts contemplated in clause (2). (4) The subordinate courts are the courts established under Article 169, or by Parliament in accordance with that Article.” 7.The jurisdiction of the Court is further pronounced in section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, to wit: -12. Jurisdiction of the Court1.(1)The Court shall have exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes referred to it in accordance with Article 162(2) of the Constitution and the provisions of this Act or any other written law which extends jurisdiction to the Court relating to employment and labour relations including —(a)disputes relating to or arising out of employment between an employer and an employee;(b)disputes between an employer and a trade union;(c)disputes between an employers' organisation and a trade unions organisation;(d)disputes between trade unions;(e)disputes between employer organizations;(f)disputes between an employers' organisation and a trade union;(g)disputes between a trade union and a member thereof;(h)disputes between an employer's organisation or a federation and a member thereof;(i)disputes concerning the registration and election of trade union officials; and(j)disputes relating to the registration and enforcement of collective agreements.(2)An application, claim or complaint may be lodged with the Court by or against an employee, an employer, a trade union, an employer's organisation, a federation, the Registrar of Trade Unions, the Cabinet Secretary or any office established under any written law for such purpose.(3)In exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act, the Court shall have power to make any of the following orders(i)interim preservation orders including injunctions in cases of urgency;(ii)a prohibitory order;(iii)an order for specific performance;(iv)a declaratory order;(v)an award of compensation in any circumstances contemplated under this Act or any written law;(vi)an award of damages in any circumstances contemplated under this Act or any written law;(vii)an order for reinstatement of any employee within three years of dismissal, subject to such conditions as the Court thinks fit to impose under circumstances contemplated under any written law; or(viii)any other appropriate relief as the Court may deem fit to grant.(4)In proceedings under this Act, the Court may, subject to the rules, make such orders as to costs as the Court considers just.(5)The Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals arising from -(a)decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions; and(b)decisions of any other local tribunal or commission as may be prescribed under any written law.’ 8.The petition challenges the conduct of the 1st Respondent while in office and further questions the role of the 4th Respondent in the conduct of the 1st Respondent. The petition questions the manner in which the 1st respondent, or public officer has performed his statutory mandate. It also questions the role of oversight bodies, the 4th respondent. These matters fall within the realm of public administration, ethics, and the integrity of public officers, and are not within the domain of employment disputes. Neither the employee nor the employer has complained about work issues at the shop floor, welfare, terms of service, or benefits or deductions related to employment. The petition does not come within an employer-employee dispute or employment grievances contemplated in section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act . The petition invites the court to assume a supervisory role over the employee/public officer, which is a prerogative of the employer or legislative authorities. 9.There exists mechanisms outside the court for dealing with integrity of public officers like the 4th respondent, who the petitioner has not complained to, and on exhaustion the remedy is in High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 165 to determine whether or not the 1st respondent in exercise of his statutory and administrative roles has violated the Constitution or acted illegally. 10.In the upshot, I do hold that the instant dispute is outside the jurisdiction of this court. The court holds it lacks jurisdiction. 11.The petition and application are struck out for want of jurisdiction. 12.The petition is in public interest hence no award of costs. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH MAY, 2026.JEMIMAH KELI,JUDGE.In The Presence OfC/A OtienoPetitioner- Ms NjengaRespondents- Jepkemei h/b Mbilo