Baringo Human Rights Consortium v Nyayo Tea Zones Development Corporation (Petition E011 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 906 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court refused to halt KTDA's recruitment of a CEO and 164 other positions, finding the petitioner showed no real legal basis for blocking it.
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 Petitioner qualifies for grant of the orders sought in its application (temporary injunction to stay the recruitment of the CEO and 164 other positions)
Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioner established a prima facie case warranting a temporary injunction against the recruitment process
The application was dismissed for failure to demonstrate a prima facie case, as no constitutional or Mwongozo provisions were shown to be violated
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles as restated in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen. The Petitioner cited Articles 73(2)(a)(b), 232(1)(g) and 47(1) of the Constitution but failed to substantiate how they were violated or threatened. The Respondent showed the CEO sits ex officio with no voting rights, had not sought contract renewal, and that no law bars him serving until contract expiry. Having failed the first sequential hurdle, the other injunction thresholds fell away.
The court's restraint in interfering with an employer's human resource functions
The court will only interfere with recruitment where the employer acts unconstitutionally, unlawfully or manifestly unfairly
The Respondent relied on Geofirey Mworia v Water Resources Management Authority, which the court accepted: judicial interference with recruitment and other HR functions is warranted only where the employer contravenes the Constitution or legislation, breaches an agreement, acts manifestly unfairly, or where internal procedures have not been exhausted. The Petitioner did not demonstrate any such ground, the recruitment having followed approved HR instruments and received authorisation from the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking an interlocutory injunction must establish a prima facie case with probability of success; if that first hurdle fails, irreparable injury and balance of convenience need not be considered
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 14th August, 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- High Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules Rules 2(2) and 3; section 10 of the Judicature Act; sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction to stay the recruitment process of the Chief Executive Officer and 164 other positions pending hearing of the application inter partes and of the Petition
Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success
Costs
Costs shall be in the cause.
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.
The application dated 14th August, 2024 is accordingly dismissed. Costs shall be in the cause.
Having not passed the very first principle to be met in an application for grant of injunctive orders, I need not look into the other two
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate how the cited provisions of the Constitution have been violated or threatened.
Issues in the judgment
#Affidavit sworn date inconsistency: application dated 14th August 2024 but affidavit described as sworn 14th August 2022
Petitioner inconsistently described as 'Petitioner' and 'Applicant'; parties' roles not clearly aligned in submissions
Constitutional article citation error in pleading: 'Articles 73(2)(a) and 232(g) of the Constitution of Kenya, 23010'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Baringo Human Rights Consortium v Nyayo Tea Zones Development Corporation (Petition E011 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 906 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition (application dated 14th August, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/906/eng@2025-03-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.