Muchina v Board of Directors, Kirinyaga County Water and Sanitation Company PCL (KICOWASCO) & 2 others (Constitutional Petition E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 935 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed an MCA's challenge to KICOWASCO's 2024 recruitment because the petition lacked specifics and the hiring was already done.
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 meets the competency threshold for constitutional petitions
- 2.Whether the petition herein is overtaken by events
- 3.Whether the respondents violated the Constitution by undertaking the impugned recruitment
- 4.Whether the Petitioner is deserving of the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Competence of the constitutional petition
The petition failed the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold as it did not plead particulars of the alleged violations
The court applied the Anarita Karimi Njeru standard and subsequent authorities requiring petitioners to cite the constitutional provisions violated, the manner of violation, and to present a factual basis. The petition merely alleged violation of Articles 10 and 174 without particulars, and its claim that no advertisement occurred was contradicted by the evidence of the 15th March 2024 advertisement.
Mootness / whether petition overtaken by events
The petition was overtaken by events as recruitment was completed in May 2024
The petitioner did not rebut evidence that the recruitment was completed and appointees in service. He acknowledged in his Supplementary Affidavit that appointment letters were issued after the recruitment committee report, rendering the injunction prayer moot.
Alleged violation of constitutional values in the recruitment
No violation established; recruitment was competitive, open and board-sanctioned
Notwithstanding the competence finding, the court considered the evidence and found the recruitment complied with the values and principles of public service under Article 232: it was done competitively and openly, sanctioned by the Board, with financial impact analysis conducted before appointments.
Legal principles established
#- A constitutional petition must set out with reasonable precision the provision said to be infringed and the manner of infringement
- Courts deal with real, not hypothetical or perceived disputes
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the ELRC); Article 165(3)(d) referenced regarding interpretation jurisdiction
Relief refused
#Declaration that the job advertisement and recruitment thereunder is null and void
Petition did not meet competence threshold and was overtaken by events
Order of certiorari quashing the recruitment
Administrative action challenges must be brought by judicial review application, not petition, per section 9 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act as urged by respondents
Permanent injunction restraining further recruitment
Recruitment completed and appointments issued in May 2024
Costs
Since the suit is a public litigation in nature, each party shall 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.
I find and hold that the Petition herein does not meet the competence threshold for constitutional petitions.
I find that the petition is overtaken by events and it has become a moot case with respect to the prayer for injunction.
the values and principles of public service under Article 232 of the Constitution were not violated as the recruitment was done competitively and in an open manner.
In view of the findings made above, I am satisfied that the petition is incompetent and devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed. Since the suit is a public litigation in nature, each party shall bear own costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muchina v Board of Directors, Kirinyaga County Water and Sanitation Company PCL (KICOWASCO) & 2 others (Constitutional Petition E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 935 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 19th April 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/935/eng@2025-03-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.