Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. E081 of 2021 (lead file), consolidated with Civil Appeal No. E165 of 2021· [2025] KECA 505 (KLR)

Ngutari & 5 others v Okello. & 5 others (Civil Appeal E081 & E165 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2025] KECA 505 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
21 March 2025
10,364 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~41 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that the Judicial Service Commission, not Cabinet Secretaries, must appoint members of tribunals like the Business Premises Rent Tribunal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This consolidated appeal (Civil Appeals E081 and E165 of 2021, E081 being the lead file) arose from an Employment and Labour Relations Court judgment quashing Gazette Notice No. 4244 of 26th June 2020 by which the Cabinet Secretary appointed members of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal. The central questions were the status of the Tribunal under the Constitution, the lawful appointing authority, the legality of the recruitment process, and the propriety of the relief granted. The Court of Appeal, in a single judgment of the bench, held that the Business Premises Rent Tribunal is a local tribunal under Article 169(1)(d) of the Constitution and therefore a subordinate court; its presiding officers are judicial officers under Article 260, and under Article 172(1)(c) read with section 32 of the Judicial Service Act, the Judicial Service Commission - not the Cabinet Secretary - is empowered to appoint them. Executive appointment contravened separation of powers, Articles 10 and 232, and the fair competition and merit requirements of section 10 of the Public Service (Values and Principles) Act, since recruitment relied on an internal database without open competition. The Court also held that the two-thirds gender principle applies immediately to appointive positions and that progressive realisation is available only for elective positions. However, the Court found the quashing of 'consequential actions' to be inappropriate relief, since the appointees' qualifications were unchallenged and they had already made decisions affecting the public. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, but the order quashing the decisions taken by the 1st to 4th appellants was set aside, and a structural interdict was issued directing the transition of the Tribunal to the Judiciary, with progress reports to the ELRC within three months. There was no order as to the costs of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Status of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal under the Constitution

Holding

It is a local tribunal under Article 169(1)(d) and therefore a subordinate court

Reasoning

Reading Articles 1(3), 159, 162 and 169 holistically, the Court held that apart from superior courts, independent tribunals and tribunals established by or under the Constitution, any court or local tribunal established by an Act of Parliament is a subordinate court. Section 7 of the Sixth Schedule requires pre-existing laws to be construed to conform to the Constitution, so the distinction between tribunals existing at promulgation and later ones is untenable.

p. 10
02

Appointing authority for members of local tribunals

Holding

The Judicial Service Commission, not the Cabinet Secretary

Reasoning

Presiding officers of local tribunals fall within the Article 260 definition of judicial officer. Under Article 172(1)(c) and section 32 of the Judicial Service Act, the Commission appoints judicial officers. Executive appointment of members of local tribunals contravenes separation of powers and Article 50(1). The pending Tribunals Bill itself contemplates appointment by the Commission.

p. 12
03

Fair competition, merit and public participation in the recruitment

Holding

The recruitment process was unconstitutional for lack of fair competition and transparency

Reasoning

The Ministry relied solely on curricula vitae from its internal database of past applications and candidates it considered qualified. This denied qualified persons who had since developed interest or qualification an opportunity, failing Articles 10 and 232 of the Constitution and section 10 of the Public Service (Values and Principles) Act, and sidestepping public participation.

p. 14
04

Two-thirds gender rule in appointive positions

Holding

Breached by appointing only one woman of five; progressive realisation does not apply to appointments

Reasoning

The appellants produced no evidence on the composition of courts and tribunals hearing land and environmental matters to support their aggregate-composition argument. The Court endorsed the position that Article 27(8) must be realised immediately in appointive positions, adopting a purposive interpretation of the constitutional guarantee.

p. 16
05

Appropriate relief and structural interdict

Holding

The quashing of 'consequential actions' was not appropriate relief; the Court set aside that part and directed a supervised transition

Reasoning

The appointees had already made decisions affecting the public and their qualifications were unchallenged. Nullifying their decisions wholesale would expose the public to chaos. Borrowing from Mitu-Bell, the Court crafted a structural interdict: transition of the Tribunal to the Judiciary under the supervision of the ELRC, with progress reports within three months.

p. 18
06

Effect of parties' positions in constitutional litigation

Holding

A court is not bound by the parties' positions or consents in constitutional interpretation, which proceeds in rem

Reasoning

The Judicial Service Commission supported the appeal, disclaiming any mandate to appoint Tribunal members. The Court held that constitutional interpretation is not in personam; judgments in rem bind the whole world, so an organ cannot evade a constitutional obligation by abdicating or posturing that the mandate lies elsewhere.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Tribunals established by an Act of Parliament exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers are local tribunals under Article 169(1)(d) and are subordinate courts that must be transitioned to the Judiciary
  • Members of local tribunals under Article 169(1)(d) are judicial officers under Article 260 and must be appointed by the Judicial Service Commission under Article 172(1)(c)
  • In constitutional interpretation, the court is not bound by positions or consents taken by parties, including by a state organ abdicating its mandate
  • Public appointments must be made through an open, competitive, merit-based process; reliance on internal databases of past applicants falls short of Articles 10 and 232 and section 10 of the Public Service (Values and Principles) Act
  • The two-thirds gender principle applies immediately to appointive positions; progressive realisation is available only for elective positions

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal was dismissed
  2. 2.The order quashing the decisions made by the 1st to 4th appellants was set aside
  3. 3.The Cabinet Secretary (or its successor, the Attorney General) and the Judicial Service Commission were directed to set in motion the process of transitioning the Business Premises Rent Tribunal to the Judiciary, if not already transitioned
  4. 4.A report on the progress of the transition to be filed with the Employment and Labour Relations Court within 3 months, which court shall give further orders on the process and progress of the transition
  5. 5.No order as to the costs of the appeal
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nairobi
Petition Nos. 99 and 100 of 2020 (consolidated)
Jurisdiction invoked
Appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Employment and Labour Relations Court; the specific constitutional or statutory provision is not stated in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ngutari & 5 others v Okello. & 5 others (Civil Appeal E081 & E165 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2025] KECA 505 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal No. E081 of 2021 (lead file), consolidated with Civil Appeal No. E165 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/505/eng@2025-03-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.