Christine Songa v County Executive Committee Member Finance, County Government of Kakamega & 2 others; Local Authorities Provident Fund (Lapfund) & another (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 1678 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kakamega court declined to decide a pension dispute because nearly identical cases are already pending in Nairobi, sending the matter there instead.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the remittance of the Petitioner's and co-workers' pension contributions to the County Governments Retirement Scheme without their consent violated constitutional rights
- 2.Whether this Petition should be heard together with, or referred for directions in light of, the pending Nairobi Petitions raising the same questions on the validity of the County Governments Retirement Scheme Act
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court could determine the Petition without ruling on the validity of section 55 of the County Governments Retirement Scheme Act
No; the Petitioner's challenge necessarily implicated the validity of sections 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Act, which were already under consideration in earlier Nairobi Petitions
The Court found that the County Government of Kakamega acted on a statutory provision, and it was debatable whether the Petitioner's consent was required. Any finding would require delving into the validity of the section. Since three Nairobi petitions (Nos. 213, 222 and 230 of 2019) already raised the validity of the Act, the Court referred the matter for directions to avoid conflicting findings.
Legal principles established
#- Where petitions raising the same question of validity of a statute are pending in another court, a later petition should be heard by the court seized of the earlier petitions to avoid conflicting findings
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition be placed before the Principal Judge for further directions
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; the Court exercised its first-instance jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Article 162(2) of the Constitution (implied, not quoted)
Relief refused
#All the remedies sought in the Petition (declarations, mandatory orders and compliance orders)
The Court declined to make findings because the validity and application of sections 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the County Governments Retirement Scheme Act is already under consideration in earlier Nairobi Petitions, and hearing it separately risked inconsistent findings
Costs
No costs order made
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
From the above, it is clear to the Court that this Petition and the 3 other Petitions in Nairobi are anchored on the validity of the County Governments Retirement Scheme Act.
The Court, therefore, directs that this Petition be placed before the Principal Judge for further directions.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent petition numbering for the same case within the judgment
The judgment disposes of the matter by referral rather than deciding the Petition on its merits
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Christine Songa v County Executive Committee Member Finance, County Government of Kakamega & 2 others; Local Authorities Provident Fund (Lapfund) & another (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 1678 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Petition No. 13 of 2020 (Kakamega). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1678/eng@2021-05-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.