Esuron v Turkana County Public Service Board & another (Judicial Review E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1260 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court ordered Turkana's Public Service Board to shortlist a county lawyer for the County Solicitor job, ruling his public-service years count as advocate experience.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the requirement of 'at least five years' experience as an Advocate of the High Court' under section 17(2)(a) of the Office of the County Attorney Act requires continuous practicing certificates
The court held that experience as an advocate runs from admission and does not require practicing certificates; an officer in public employment is exempt under section 10 of the Advocates Act and thus deemed to be practising.
Section 17(2)(a) refers to experience as an advocate, not to practicing certificates. Section 2 defines an advocate by entry on the Roll, and section 10 entitles public officers to act as advocates without practicing certificates. The Applicant served as Legal Counsel in the County from 2016 and Principal Legal Counsel in the Office of the County Attorney from 2020, so his years of service count as experience. The Applicant therefore met the five-year threshold.
Scope of judicial review
The court, exercising judicial review, confined itself to the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision.
Relying on established authority, the court reiterated that judicial review examines whether the decision-maker had jurisdiction, observed fair hearing, and considered relevant matters; the court is not entitled to act as a court of appeal over the decider or substitute its view on the merits.
Legal principles established
#- Experience as an advocate does not necessarily mean that one must have a practicing certificate; a public officer acting as advocate without charging fees is exempt from taking out a practicing certificate and the years served count as experience as an advocate.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of mandamus to issue to compel the 1st Respondent to include the name of David Eyanae Esuron among the shortlisted candidates for the position of Solicitor for the County Government of Turkana and to conduct an interview for him objectively and without bias
- 2.The 1st Respondent shall pay the Applicant's costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules / Fair Administrative Action Act; motion for order of mandamus
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Esuron v Turkana County Public Service Board & another (Judicial Review E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1260 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Application dated 3rd February 2025 (Originating Motion). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1260/eng@2025-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.