Mboga & 3 others v Public Service Commission & 3 others; South Eastern Kenya University (Respondent) (Petition E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 722 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 petition complied with Rule 10(1) and (2) of the Mutunga Rules and the Anarita Karimi Njeru standard of pleading with particularity
- 2.Whether the Public Service Internship Programme and its contracts contravened the Constitution by recruiting trained, qualified graduates as interns
- 3.Whether the interns' rights to fair labour practices and fair remuneration under Article 41 were violated
- 4.Whether the programme and the non-absorption of interns into permanent and pensionable employment was discriminatory contrary to Article 27
- 5.Whether an order of prohibition should issue restraining the 1st respondent from recruiting and employing interns
Key legal issues
#Adequacy of pleading in a constitutional petition
The petition failed to plead with particularity the specific facts of the alleged violation and the nature of injury caused, as required by Rule 10(2)(d) of the Mutunga Rules and the Anarita Karimi Njeru standard
The Court held that the petitioners merely cited Article 41 and stated their understanding of its meaning without particularizing facts or adducing evidence of violation. They also failed to disclose the nature of injury caused to themselves or to the public. As beneficiaries of the programme who were now working, they had suffered no loss.
Whether the internship programme violated Article 41 (fair labour practices)
No violation established; interns are deemed public officers during the internship and receive full benefits of public officers
Under Regulation 45(6), interns are deemed public officers for the duration of the internship and are subject to the applicable regulations and code of conduct. The graduates are not employed to established posts but are assigned as trainees under a regulatory framework, which distinguishes the case from the TSC case where teachers held established positions without such a framework.
Whether non-absorption of former interns into permanent employment was discriminatory contrary to Article 27
Alleged discrimination not established; assured absorption would itself discriminate against qualified persons who were never interns
The Court found no comparability with other programmes cited by the petitioners, and held that priority absorption of former interns without competitive recruitment would disadvantage other qualified applicants, contrary to Articles 27 and 232(1)(g), (h) and (i). The regulatory framework, unchallenged by the petitioners, expressly provides that internship is not a guarantee of employment.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging constitutional violation must plead with reasonable precision and particularize the violation and the injury caused, per Rule 10(2)(d) of the Mutunga Rules and the Anarita Karimi Njeru standard
- Absorption or employment of former interns on priority or favoured basis without competitive recruitment would itself be discriminatory against non-former interns
- Under Regulation 45 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, an intern is a supervised trainee on a non-renewable one-year engagement that does not guarantee employment
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs
- 3.The Deputy Registrar to cause the case file returned to the Machakos Sub-Registry forthwith
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 41, 27 and 233 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Mutunga Rules
Relief refused
#Declaration that the Public Service Internship programme and subsequent contracts contravened the Constitution
Petitioners failed to plead with particularity the alleged constitutional violation and the injury suffered
Declaration that interns' rights to fair labour practices and remuneration under Article 41 were violated
Interns are deemed public officers with full benefits; no violation shown
Order of prohibition restraining the 1st respondent from recruiting and employing interns
The programme rests on Regulation 45 which was not challenged; it is a non-renewable training engagement that does not guarantee employment
Costs of the petition
Public interest litigation - each party to bear own costs
Costs
Each party to bear own costs
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.
In conclusion the petition is hereby dismissed with orders each party to bear own costs, and, the Deputy Registrar to cause the case file returned to the Machakos Sub-Registry forthwith.
An internship shall be for a non-renewable period not exceeding one year and shall not be a guarantee for employment in the public service.
The Court returns that alleged discrimination contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution is not established at all.
the petitioners have failed, per Rule 10(2) (d) of the Mutunga Rules, to plead and then establish the nature of the injury caused or likely to be caused to the petitioner or the person in whose name the petitioner has instituted the suit
Issues in the judgment
#The petition/cause number is not stated anywhere in the judgment extract; the case is identified only by its filing date
The judgment misspells the case name 'Anarita Karimi Njeru' as 'Anaritima Karimi Njeru' in the opening of paragraph 5
The case title omits the named petitioners and respondents; parties other than the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent are not named in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mboga & 3 others v Public Service Commission & 3 others; South Eastern Kenya University (Respondent) (Petition E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 722 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 23.09.2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/722/eng@2025-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.