Omondi v Ochola & 5 others; County Public Service Boards' National Consultative Forum & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1098 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed a bid to remove Migori County Public Service Board members, ruling only the High Court can handle such removals.
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 Court has jurisdiction to determine a petition seeking to halt the operations of the Migori County Public Service Board and effectively remove its members
- 2.Whether the Respondents lawfully assumed office and may lawfully exercise the functions of the Migori County Public Service Board
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over removal of County Public Service Board members
The Court held it lacks jurisdiction because the orders sought would effect the removal of Board members, a matter for the High Court under Article 251(1) of the Constitution
Relying on the recent Court of Appeal decision in Governor, County Government of Kakamega & 4 others v Omweno & 12 others, the Court found that the impugned orders, by their reading and implication, would result in removal of the members of the Migori County Public Service Board. It noted that jurisdiction is being settled and evolving and found no room to distinguish the decision. A jurisdictional challenge could properly be raised in submissions before final judgment despite a prior ruling.
Timeliness of a jurisdictional challenge
A challenge to jurisdiction may be raised at any time before final judgment, even after a prior ruling on the viability of the petition
The Respondents and 2nd Interested Party raised jurisdiction in submissions despite the Court's earlier ruling on the viability of the Petition. The Court held they were within their rights to do so, applying the principle that jurisdiction is everything and can be challenged at any time before final judgment.
Improper joinder/partitioning of parties
The Petitioner should have impleaded the Migori County Public Service Board as the principal party with the individual members as Interested Parties, though the Court did not rest its decision on this alone
The Court observed that the Petition included the Board as an interested party yet the ensuing orders would materially affect it; the Board should have been the principal respondent. This misjoinder was noted but the dismissal rested on want of jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- A challenge to jurisdiction can be made at any time before final judgment is given
- Without jurisdiction a court has no authority to take any step
- The Employment and Labour Relations Court lacks jurisdiction over the removal of the Chairperson and Members of a County Public Service Board, a process guided by Article 251(1) of the Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is dismissed
- 2.The Court declines the invitation to issue any of the orders proposed by the Petitioner
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution; jurisdiction challenged under Article 251(1) as applied by the Court of Appeal in Governor, County Government of Kakamega & 4 others v Omweno & 12 others [2025] KECA 190 (KLR)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the Respondents' exercise of functions of the Migori County Public Service Board amounts to a gross violation of the Constitution and statute
The Court found it lacked jurisdiction, as granting the orders would result in the removal of members of the County Public Service Board, a matter reserved to the High Court under Article 251(1)
Order of certiorari quashing the Respondents' exercise of Board functions
Dismissed with the whole petition for want of jurisdiction
Order of prohibition restraining the Respondents from exercising the Board's mandate
Dismissed with the whole petition for want of jurisdiction
Costs
As the Petition was mounted in the public interest, the parties were ordered to each bear their 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.
It is trite that jurisdiction is everything. Without it a court of law has no authority to take any step.
A challenge to jurisdiction can be made at any time before final judgment is given.
The Petition is hereby dismissed and the Court declines the invitation to issue any orders as proposed by the Petitioner. As the Petition was mounted in the public interest, I will order that the parties each bear their own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The Court refers to impleading 'the 2nd Respondent as the principal party', but the Board is elsewhere identified as the 2nd Interested Party, suggesting a typographical inconsistency
The Petitioner's submissions variously cite the interfering court order as HC JR E003 of 2023 and HC JR E017 of 2023
The judgment does not state the petition's case number or a neutral citation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omondi v Ochola & 5 others; County Public Service Boards' National Consultative Forum & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1098 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Petition filed in the Employment and Labour Relations Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1098/eng@2025-04-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.