https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1740

Wangui v Cunty Government of Kiambu & 14 others (Petition E053 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1740 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1740 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Petition E053 of 2025 JW Keli, J June 19, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 41, 47, 48, 49, 50, 103-113, 165(3)(d)(i) & (ii), 169(1), 171, and 172 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010SECTIONS 50, 51, 54, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 72(B), 75, 76(2), 86, and 96 OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS AСТ, 2012SECTIONS 10(5), 43, 47(5), 5(3)(b), and 49(1)(c) OF THE EMPLOYMENT АСТ, 2007SECTION 4 OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AСТ, 2015 Between Joseph Abasi Wangui Petitioner and The Cunty Government of Kiambu 1st Respondent The County Public Service Board, Kiambu 2nd Respondent Daisy Cheboi, The Chief Officer, Department of Administration (In her Official and Personal Capacity) 3rd Respondent KImani Wamatangi, The Governor of the Kiambu County (In his Official and Personal Capacity) 4th Respondent County Secretary, Kiambu County 5th Respondent Celina Murithii (In her Official and Personal Capacity) Deputy Director, Department of Administration 6th Respondent The County Executive Committee Member (CECM) for Public Service & Administration 7th Respondent Stephen Mwangi, Director Payroll Kiambu County 8th Respondent and The County assembly of Kiambu 1st Interested Party The Commission on Administrative Justice (Ombudsman) 2nd Interested Party The Public Service Commission (PSC) 3rd Interested Party The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) 4th Interested Party The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) 5th Interested Party The Senate of the Republic of Kenya 6th Interested Party The Senate Standing Committee on Labour & Social welfare 7th Interested Party Judgment 1.The petitioner was a public officer employed by the County Government of Kiambu in the capacity of Ward Administrator. On 24th September 2024, the 3rd Respondent, the Chief Officer of Administration, issued a redeployment directive requiring the Petitioner to report to Kiambu Headquarters as a Facility Manager, effective 1st October 2024. The Petitioner formally rejected this directive alleging it was illegal and unconstitutional and filed a Petition dated 14th March 2025 in court seeking for the following orders-a.Declaration: That the directive issued by the Respondents is ultra vires, unconstitutional, and in violation of the County Governments Act, 2012 the Employment Act, 2007, the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, and the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.b.A declaration that the Respondents' actions and conduct amount to the denial, violation, and/or infringement of the Petitioner's fundamental rights and freedoms under Articles 27, 28, 41, and 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.c.Reinstatement: Immediate reinstatement of the Petitioner as a ward administrator and post him to his previous station at Ting'ang'a Ward or an alternative ward closer to his residence, with due consideration for his circumstances.d.An order directing the Respondents to immediately reinstate the petitioner's salary and medical insurance benefits to protect my constitutional rights under Articles 45 and 53 of the Constitution and to safeguard my children's right to food, education, and healthcare.e.An order declaring that all Show Cause and Disciplinary Action Letters issued to the Petitioner are illegal, null, and void, for violating his constitutional and statutory rights.f.An order restraining the Respondents from issuing any further disciplinary letters, Show Cause Notices, or taking any adverse action against the Petitioner in retaliation for exercising his rights.g.An order directing the Respondents to expunge all unlawful disciplinary records from the Petitioner's employment file and restore his employment status without prejudice.In the alternative to reinstatement, the Petitioner seeks:1.A declaratory order that the Petitioner is deemed to have been constructively dismissed by the Respondents due to continuous unlawful redeployments and financial victimization.2.An award of damages for wrongful constructive dismissal under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act, 2007.3.An order for compensation equivalent to the Petitioner's lost salary up to the age of retirement (2041), calculated in accordance with Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act, as damages for wrongful constructive dismissal.4.An award of general damages for: Psychological trauma and emotional distress. Financial embarrassment, including damage to creditworthiness. Defamation of character resulting from forced redeployment.5.An order directing the Respondents to pay interest on all awarded damages from the date of filing suit until full payment.6.An order prohibiting any future redeployment without adherence to lawful and fair procedures.7.An award of general and exemplary damages of KES 12,000,000 or such amount as this Honourable Court deems just, compensating the Petitioner for:" a. Financial loss due to unlawful salary suspension. b. Emotional distress and financial hardships suffered. c. Reputational damage and professional stagnation.8.The Petitioner further seeks an order from this Honourable Court directing the 3rd Respondent, Daisy Cheboi and the 4th respondent, Kimani Wamatangi, Governor of Kiambu County & 6th respondent to pay damages in their personal capacities for their unlawful and oppressive actions towards the Petitioner. This measure is intended as a deterrent to prevent future conduct that disregards statutory duties, violates constitutional rights, and undermines fair labour practices within the county's administrative framework9.A declaration that the 7th Respondent, the County Executive Committee Member for Public Service & Administration, has failed in their statutory duty to oversee fair and lawful employment practices in Kiambu County.10.An order directing the Public Service Commission (PSC) to investigate the 7th Respondent's failure to exercise proper oversight in employment matters within Kiambu County and take appropriate disciplinary action.11.An order holding the 7th Respondent personally liable for the unlawful redeployments and violations of fair labor practices that have affected the Petitioner.12.A declaration that the 2nd Respondent, the County Public Service Board (CPSB), has failed in its statutory mandate to oversee lawful staffing practices and prevent unlawful redeployments.13.An order compelling the County Public Service Board (CPSB) to conduct a formal review of all redeployments of Ward Administrators within Kiambu County over the past five (5) years and implement measures to prevent further abuse of the process.14.An order directing the 1st Interested Party (Ombudsman) to investigate the systemic governance issues within the County Government of Kiambu.15.An order directing the Public Service Commission (PSC) to take disciplinary action against the 3rd, 5th, and 7th Respondents for abuse of office and unlawful redeployment practices.16.An order compelling the County Public Service Board (CPSB) to develop and submit to this Honourable Court within NINETY (90) DAYS a framework for: a. Ensuring lawful redeployments in Kiambu County. b. Preventing political victimization of Ward Administrators. c. Strengthening oversight over county staffing processes.17.An order directing the Public Service Commission (PSC) to investigate the 2nd and 8th Respondents for their failure to exercise proper oversight over county staffing and redeployments.18.An order directing the Kiambu County Government to provide back payment for all expenses incurred due to unlawful redeployments, including travel, baggage, and relocation allowances to the petitioner.19.A declaration that the 4th Respondent, the Governor of Kiambu County, has failed in their statutory and constitutional duty to ensure lawful employment practices and prevent abuse of administrative powers.20.A declaration that the 4th Respondent (Governor) and 5th Respondent (Chief Officer) acted in breach of Section 30(3) of the County Governments Act, which 33 mandates the Governor to ensure lawful, transparent, and accountable administration of county affairs, including human resource management.21.An order directing the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) to investigate the Governor's failure to exercise oversight over unlawful redeployments within the County Government of Kiambu.22.An order requiring the Governor to provide a formal report to this Honourable Court within sixty (60) days detailing: a. Measures taken to prevent further unlawful redeployments within Kiambu County. b. Disciplinary actions taken against county officials involved in abuse of office.23.An order directing the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) to investigate the 4th Respondent (Governor) and the 2nd, 3rd, 5th 6th, and 7th Respondents for their failure to prevent unlawful redeployments within NINETY (90) DAYS and submit a report to this Honourable Court.24.A declaration that the 8th Respondent, (Director Payroll, Kiambu County), colluded with the 3rd respondent in an unlawful conspiracy to withhold the Petitioner's salary, causing financial hardship and violating Section 10(5) of the Employment Act, 2007.25.An order holding the 8th Respondent personally. liable for the financial distress caused by her illegal and malicious actions.26.An order directing the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) to investigate the 8th Respondent's role in facilitating financial victimization through salary manipulation and payroll irregularities.27.An order directing the immediate release of all withheld salary payments, including accrued arrears, with interest, to the Petitioner. 31. An order directing the immediate reinstatement of the Petitioner's medical cover and all associated benefits within seven (7) days of this Court's order.28.An order directing the Respondents to compensate the Petitioner for any medical expenses incurred due to the unlawful suspension of his health insurance cover, including medication costs and hospital bills.29.An order restraining the Respondents from any further interference with the Petitioner's salary, allowances, or employment benefits, including medical insurance.30.An order directing the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) to issue a report on the violation of labor and administrative rights within Kiambu County Government and recommend corrective measures.31.An order directing the Senate, through the Standing Committee on Labour & Social Welfare, to initiate an investigation into the County Government of Kiambu regarding: a. The illegal redeployment practices affecting Ward Administrators. b. The CPSB's failure to regulate county human resource functions. c. The role of the Governor & CPSB in orchestrating political victimization through employment decisions.32.An order compelling the Senate to summon the Respondents to appear before the Senate Standing Committee on Labour & Social Welfare to explain: a. The legality of the Petitioner's redeployment. b. The irregular salary stoppage & medical insurance cancellation.33.An order directing the Senate to issue a report within 90 days, outlining: a. Legislative recommendations to prevent political victimization of county employees. b. Proposed amendments to the County Governments Act to enhance accountability on redeployments. 38. An order that failure by the Respondents to comply with the court orders shall constitute contempt of court, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment for the responsible officers as per the Contempt of Court Act, 2016..34.Costs of this petition to be borne by the Respondents.35.Such further relief as the Honourable Court may deem just and appropriate. 2.The petitioner filed an affidavit of even date where he focused on 4 prayers as follows- ‘WHEREFORE, I humbly pray that this Honourable Court grants the prayers as set out in the Petition, including:a.Immediate reinstatement or, alternatively, damages for wrongful constructive dismissal. b. Compensation for withheld salary and accrued arrears.c.An order holding the 9th Respondent personally liable for financial victimization.d.An investigation by the ombudsman, PSC, EACC, and the Senate.’ 3.The petitioner stated that the court at the interlocutory stage issued an interim order on the 9th April 2025 and, inter alia, ordered the stay of suspension of the petitioner from his substantive position of ward administrator and his salary pending hearing and determination of the petition. The court also referred the dispute to PSC pursuant to its constitutional mandate over county public service appeals. The petitioner was heard, and a decision was issued in his favour by the PSC, dated 18th February 2026, which decision was presented before the court via a replying affidavit from Paula Famba dated 9th March 2026. The petitioner states that there are outstanding issues pending for the court to determine, including constitutional violations, questions of damages, and the accountability of the individuals involved in the administrative issues. 4.The petitioner identified the following outstanding issues for determination by the court: notwithstanding the Public Service Commission's determination, several issues raised in the petition remain unresolved and fall within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. In particular, the Public Service Commission did not determine the constitutional violations, the question of damages, or the accountability of the individual officers involved in the impugned administrative actions. Consequently, the petitioner urged the following issues remain for determination by this Honourable Court:a.Whether the actions and conduct of the Respondents violated the Petitioner's constitutional rights, including the right to fair labour practices, the right to fair administrative action, the right to dignity, and the constitutional protection of public officers from victimization.b.Whether the issuance of the Show Cause and disciplinary letters against the Petitioner was unlawful, retaliatory and intended to coerce the Petitioner into accepting an unlawful redeployment.3. Whether the Respondents engaged in abuse of administrative power and victimization of the Petitioner through repeated unlawful redeployments and the stoppage of his salary and employment benefits.c.Whether the Petitioner is entitled to general, exemplary and other damages arising from the violation of his constitutional and statutory rights.d.Whether the named officers of the County Government should bear personal liability for their actions in perpetuating the unlawful redeployment and the stoppage of the Petitioner's salary.e.Whether this Honourable Court should issue appropriate declaratory and supervisory orders to address the unlawful conduct of the Respondents and prevent similar violations within the county public service. It is therefore the Petitioner's submission that while the Public Service Commission addressed the administrative legality of the redeployment, this Honourable Court retains jurisdiction to determine the constitutional and remedial questions arising from the Respondents' unlawful conduct.’ 5.The respondent submitted that the court lacks jurisdiction to determine the issues as framed by the petitioner as follows: On 14th May 2025, we filed a preliminary objection opposing this court`s jurisdiction to hear the petitioner`s claim. We urged the court to refer the case to the Public Service Commission, which has jurisdiction to hear cases emanating from county governments regarding employment. On 20th May 2025, the court referred the case to the Public Service Commission. On 18th February 2026, the Public Service Commission delivered its decision on appeal no. 205 of 2025. The core issue is whether the Employment and Labour Court has jurisdiction to give further directions in this case. Issues for determination: The respondents believe that the issue for determination by the court is; (a) whether the court has jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. (b) whether the court has jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. It would be prudent to read the relevant Act to establish what the law states regarding the issue in question. Section 89 of the Public Service Commission Act provides that a person affected by the decision of the commission made under this part may file for enforcement the decision by the Employment and Labour Relations Court, as provided under Article 162(2) of the Constitution. Section 24 of the Public Service Commission (County Appeals Procedure) regulations 22, provides that a person dissatisfied with or affected by the commission`s decision regarding an appeal may apply in writing to the commission for a review of that decision. In the case of Owners of the Motor Vessel `Lillian S` VS Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989) KLR, Nyarangi JA stated, "Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law 'down tools' with respect to the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction……………. where a court takes it upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before judgment is given." Further, in the case of Joseph Muthee Kamu & another vs David Mwangi Gichure & another (2013) eKLR, the court stated that when a suit is filed in a court without jurisdiction, it is a nullity. We hold that jurisdiction cannot be conferred at the time of delivery of judgment; jurisdiction does not operate retroactively. Jurisdiction must exist at the time of filing suit or at the latest at the start of the hearing. In Samuel Kamau Macharia & another VS Kenya Commercial Bank & 2 others (Supra), the court stated, "Thus, a court can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law……….". In ELRC Kisumu, the court in Tabitha Akoth Oketch vs Migori County Public Service Board (2025) eKLR, observed, "It is common ground that provisions of the Public Service Commission Act do not confer upon the ELRC any jurisdiction other than enforcement of decisions of the Public Service Commission. It is the finding of the court that it has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals against decisions of the Public Service Commission either pursuant to the provisions of the Public Service Commission Act or any other legislation or the Constitution of Kenya 2010." Finally, in County Public Service & another VS Hulbhai Gedi Abdille (2017) eKLR, where the Court of Appeal reiterated that: "Where there exists other sufficient and adequate avenue or forum to resolve a dispute, a party ought to pursue that avenue or forum and not invoke the court process if the dispute can be well and effectively dealt with in that other forum. Such party ought to seek redress under the other regime…….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 judicial process in the first instance. 6.The petitioner filed further submissions dated 11th May 2026 in response to the issue of jurisdiction as follows- The Respondents have submitted that this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed with the Petition following the decision of the Public Service Commission dated 18th February 2026. Respectfully, the Petitioner partly agrees and, partly disagrees with the said position. The Petitioner acknowledges that the substantive employment grievance concerning the unlawful redeployment, salary stoppage, and reinstatement was referred to the Public Service Commission by this Honourable Court pursuant to the doctrine of exhaustion and the constitutional framework governing county public service disputes. Indeed, the Public Service Commission rendered its determination on 18th February 2026 and substantially resolved the primary employment dispute in favour of the Petitioner by directing, inter alia reinstatement of the Petitioner's salary and payment of accrued salary arrears. The Petitioner therefore does not seek to reopen or re-litigate the merits of the employment dispute already determined by the Public Service Commission. However, the Respondents' submissions erroneously proceed on the assumption that the determination by the Public Service Commission automatically extinguished the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and rendered the present proceedings spent. With respect, that position is legally untenable. First, the Public Service Commission lacks direct coercive enforcement mechanisms equivalent to those vested in this Honourable Court under Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. The enforcement architecture of PSC decisions ultimately contemplates recourse to the Court where compliance is refused, delayed, frustrated, or selectively implemented.Second, the Respondents themselves have demonstrated precisely why continued supervisory jurisdiction of this Honourable Court remains necessary. Despite the PSC decision having been rendered on 18th February 2026, the Respondents failed to fully comply with the same, failed to pay accrued salary arrears, selectively implemented only portions favourable to themselves and continued frustrating the Petitioner through partial compliance. The Petitioner therefore approaches this Honourable Court not for re-litigation of the employment grievance, but for enforcement and supervision of compliance with the PSC decision, enforcement of prior Court orders and determination of the constitutional and public law violations pleaded in the Petition which were neither conclusively addressed nor capable of full determination before the Public Service Commission. Third, the constitutional dimensions pleaded in the Petition remain alive and unresolved. The Petition raises substantial questions regarding: violation of Articles 27, 41, 47, and 236 amongst other articles of the Constitution; Victimization of a public officer; abuse of administrative power; arbitrary deprivation of salary and employment benefits; and constitutional damages arising therefrom. The jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to determine constitutional questions arising within employment and labour disputes is now settled. In Daniel N. Mugendi v Kenyatta University & 3 others, the Court affirmed that specialized courts established under Article 162(2) possess jurisdiction to determine constitutional questions arising within matters falling under their specialized mandate. Similarly, in Muya v Judicial Service Commission others, the Court held that the existence of constitutional questions within an employment dispute does not oust the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court. Further, Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act expressly grants jurisdiction this Honourable reliefs .compensation, constitutional remedies, judicial review orders and any other appropriate relief. The Public Service Commission, while empowered to determine employment grievances within county public service, does not possess the same constitutional remedial jurisdiction as this Honourable Court to issue constitutional declarations, constitutional damages, supervisory remedies, coercive enforcement orders and other public law reliefs sought in the Petition. Additionally, Section 87 of the Public Service Commission Act contemplates enforcement of PSC decisions through judicial mechanisms where compliance is refused or frustrated. This Honourable Court retains constitutional and statutory jurisdiction to ensure obedience to lawful decisions and protect the authority of judicial and constitutional processes. The Respondents cannot simultaneously rely on the PSC decision as binding while at the same time refusing to fully implement the same and thereafter argue that this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to supervise or enforce compliance. Accordingly, the Petitioner respectfully submits that the substantive employment grievance was substantially resolved by the PSC, the present proceedings survive for purposes of enforcement, supervision of implementation, constitutional violations and consequential constitutional and public law remedies. This Honourable Court retains constitutional and statutory jurisdiction to ensure obedience to lawful decisions and to protect constitutional rights arising from employment relationships. In the circumstances, the Petitioner respectfully urges this Honourable Court to reject the Respondents' invitation to terminate the proceedings prematurely and instead proceed to determine the remaining enforcement, constitutional, supervisory, and consequential issues arising herein. Decision on the issue of jurisdiction 7.The petitioner filed an appeal against the decision of the respondent before the Public Service Commission. The Commission’s decision was in favour of the petitioner as follows- ‘Disposition56.For the above reasons and pursuant to Section 86(4) of the Public Service Commission Act Cap. 185 as read together with Regulation 21 of the Public Service Commission (County Appeals Procedures) Regulations, 2022 the Commission allows the appeal and directs that; -a.)The decisions to redeploy the appellant and subsequent letters dated 24th September 2024 and 4th October 2024, communicating the said decisions are hereby set aside;b.) The 2nd Respondent reinstates the appellant to his previous position as Ward administrator at Ting'ang'a ward, Kiambu County, before the irregular redeployment communicated vide letter dated 24th September 2024;c.)The Respondents pay the appellant his fully salary, allowances and benefits from the date they were irregularly stopped to date, and thereafter his salary and applicable allowances be paid as when and due on a monthly basis; andd.)Having found that the 2nd Respondent has the power to exercise overall disciplinary and managerial control over Ward Administrators, including the power to redeploy them, the 2nd Respondent is hereby directed to take the necessary steps to develop and implement a framework governing the redeployment of Ward Administrators.Decided at Nairobi this 18th day of February 2026’ 8.The court noted that the appeal before the Commission sought the same prayers in the petition. The Commission exercised its judication given under Article 234 (2)of the Constitution, to wit – ‘(i)hear and determine appeals in respect of county governments’ public service; and’ 9.The mandate of the Commission is legislated under section 85 of the Public Service Commission Act as follows- ‘The Commission shall, in order to discharge its mandate under Article 234(2)(i) of the Constitution, hear and determine appeals in respect of any decision relating to engagement of any person in a County Government, including a decision in respect of—(a)recruitment, selection, appointment and qualifications attached to any office;(b)remuneration and terms and conditions of service;(c)disciplinary control;(d)national values and principles of governance, under Article 10 and values and principles of public service under Article 232 of the Constitution;(e)retirement and other forms of removal from the public service;(f)pension benefits, gratuity and any other terminal benefits; or(g)any other decision the Commission considers to fall within its constitutional competence to hear and determine an appeal in that regard.’’ 10.In County Public Service & another VS Hulbhai Gedi Abdille (2017) eKLR, the Court of Appeal observed that: ``Where there exists other sufficient and adequate avenue or forum to resolve a dispute, a party ought to pursue that avenue or forum and not invoke the court process if the dispute could very well and effectively be dealt with in that other forum. Such party ought to seek redress under the other regime…….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 first instance.’ In that decision ,the Court of Appeal stated the jurisdiction of Commission was unfettered. The petitioner received a decision. The appeal had similar reliefs, all related to unfair labour practice. He was reinstated with full salary from the date of steppage. In Wajir Wasco Limited alias Wajir Water & Sewerage Company & another v Mohamed & 2 others [2024] KECA 937 (KLR) where the Court of Appeal held as follows- ‘There is no dispute that the germane dispute is stoppage of salaries. This is an employer/employee dispute. We are alive to the fact that every case has a constitutional underpinning, be it a criminal case, civil or commercial. However, it is important to point out that not every dispute ought to be brought as constitutional question. A constitutional question is an issue whose resolution requires the interpretation of a constitution rather than that of a statute. The germane issue in this can case be resolved by interpreting the facts, the contract documents, (written or oral) and the relevant statutes. This discourse brings into focus the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, which is defined as a preference of deciding a case on any other basis other than one which involves a constitutional...’’ I agreed that the court has no jurisdiction to reopen the case. Section 88 of Public Service Commission Act provides for review if a party is not satisfied with the decision of the Commission as follows- ‘(1)A person who is dissatisfied or affected by a decision made by the Commission following an appeal under this section may apply for review and the Commission may admit the application if—(a)fresh material facts arise which with due diligence could not be presented when the decision was initially made; or(b)there is an error apparent on the record of the earlier decision.’’ The petitioner raised issues of enforcement of the decision of the Commission. Section 89 of Public Service Commission Act provides as follows- ‘89. Enforcement of appeal decision(1) Any person who is affected by the decision of the Commission made under this Part may file the decision for enforcement by the Employment and Labour Relations Court provided for under Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution.’’ The court agreed with the respondent that the petition has raised the germane issue in dispute, having been referred to the Commission to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 234 of the Constitution. 11.The court holds that it has no jurisdiction over this dispute and finds that there was no order of retention of any prayer in the petition for determination by the court. I reject the invitation to reopen the case as the body with the constitutional authority, the Commission, over the dispute has made a final decision. The enforcement cannot be included in the instant petition. The petitioner ought to comply with section 89 of the Public Service Commission Act. Having received the decision of the Public Service Commission dated 18th February 2026, the court holds that there are no further actions in the file. I make no order as to costs. 12.The file is marked as closed. 13.It is so Ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH JUNE, 2026.JEMIMAH KELI,JUDGE.In The Presence Of:Court Assistant: OtienoPetitioner- absentRespondent- Odere h/b Wanjiku