Gema Watho Association & another v Kenya Airports Authority & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E222 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1081 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court halted KAA's Managing Director re-hiring, ruling that a public body cannot quietly re-advertise a filled position without explaining why.
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 Applicants have locus standi to institute the petition and application
- 2.Whether the application for conservatory orders meets the required threshold (prima facie case, irreparable harm, balance of convenience)
- 3.Whether the application on access to information is premature or moot
- 4.Whether the re-advertisement of the Managing Director position discloses constitutional violations warranting interim relief
Key legal issues
#Locus standi of the Applicants before the ELRC
The objection to standing fails; Article 22 permits any person, including public-spirited persons and associations, to institute proceedings alleging threatened violation of Bill of Rights freedoms
The Respondents argued that under section 12 of the ELRC Act only parties with an employment relationship may come before the Court. The Court held that Article 22 of the Constitution grants every person the right to institute proceedings claiming a denial, violation or threatened infringement of a right or fundamental freedom, and the applicants could also sue in the public interest. The locus objection therefore could not stand.
Whether a prima facie case was established for conservatory orders
Yes; the unexplained re-advertisement of the Managing Director position after interviews were completed showed lack of transparency and a breach of Article 201(d) of the Constitution
The Court found that the position had been advertised on 11th June 2024, applicants shortlisted and interviews conducted on 4th December 2024, yet the position was re-advertised on 20th December 2024 without any explanation of why the first process bore no fruit. This lack of transparency offended Article 10 and constituted wasteful use of public money under Article 201(d), establishing a prima facie case warranting confirmation of the interim orders.
Prematurity and access to information under Article 35
The prematurity objection did not succeed; the Respondents did not explain how Article 35 related to the information requested
The Respondents contended the access-to-information prayers were premature because the request letter issued on 24th December 2024 while the petition was filed on 30th December 2024. The Court noted the Respondents had not explained how Article 35 of the Constitution related to the information requested, and ordered supply of the information sought within 14 days.
Legal principles established
#- Article 22 of the Constitution confers standing on every person to institute proceedings claiming a violation or threatened violation of rights in the Bill of Rights
- Unexplained re-advertisement of a position after a completed recruitment process is a breach of the constitutional principle that public money shall be used in a prudent and responsible way
Court orders
#- 1.A conservatory order to restrain the Respondents, their agents and/or servants from recruiting, processing, interviewing and/or appointing any person for the position of Managing Director further to the re-advertisement of that vacancy on 20th December 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the Petition
- 2.The respondent to forthwith supply the information sought under prayer (iv) within 14 days
- 3.Costs of the application to be in the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 162 and 165 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Relief refused
#Interlocutory ex parte conservatory order (prayer ii) - overtaken as interim orders had already been granted on 3/1/2025
Interim orders were granted ex parte on 3 January 2025 and the court confirmed the substantive conservatory order instead
Order compelling disclosure of the identity of the officer who authorised the re-advertisement within 7 days
Not among the orders finally granted
Costs of the application
Costs were made costs in the petition rather than awarded to the applicants
Costs
Costs of this application to be in the petition
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 that the applicants have established a prima facie case to warrant issuance of orders sought which I hereby grant confirming interim orders
The issue of the applicants lacking locus cannot therefore stand.
It is not clear why there is a re-advertisement of the same position without explaining why the previous advertisements have not borne fruit. This is indeed a breach of article 201(d)
Costs of this application to be in the petition.
A conservatory order be issued, to restrain the Respondents Respondent, their agents and/or servants from recruiting, processing, interviewing and/or appointing any person for the position of its Managing Director further to the re-advertisement of that vacancy on 20th December 2024 pending the hearing and determination of this Petition;
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not name the parties in the title/coram; the 1st Respondent is identified only in the Replying Affidavit as the Kenya Airports Authority, and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents are not named anywhere in the judgment
The Grounds of Opposition of the 1st and 3rd Respondents are dated 21st January 2024, apparently before the application of 30th December 2024 was responded to - likely a typographical error for 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gema Watho Association & another v Kenya Airports Authority & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E222 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1081 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 30th December 2024 (in a Petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1081/eng@2025-04-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.