Republic v Permanent Secretary/Provincial Administration & Internal Security Office of the President & another; Maengo (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E040 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1548 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed a dismissed chief's 20-year fight to win reinstatement and Kshs 5 million through mandamus, ruling it had no jurisdiction.
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 over proceedings transferred to it after the High Court found it lacked jurisdiction
- 2.Whether mandamus should issue to compel the respondent to reinstate or redeploy the ex parte applicant
- 3.Whether mandamus should issue to compel payment of dues, arrears and damages
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELRC had jurisdiction to entertain the transferred judicial review motion
The Court held that once the High Court found it lacked jurisdiction, there was doubtful residual jurisdiction to transfer the file, so the proceedings could not proceed.
Chigiti J had found the High Court lacked jurisdiction on 06.10.2023. In the Court's view, a finding of lack of jurisdiction ends the proceedings rather than empowering the court to transfer them onward; the litigant retains the prerogative on further steps. The purported two judgments rendered the proceedings ill-fated and the motion could not survive.
Whether mandamus could issue to compel reinstatement, redeployment or payment of dues and damages
No. Mandamus was unavailable because the applicant failed to identify a public duty the respondent had failed to perform.
The applicant had been dismissed from employment. His complaints went to the merits of that dismissal, which could not be tested by mandamus; the proper course was an ordinary action for a full hearing. Having failed to show a compellable public duty, the application for mandamus had to fail.
Legal principles established
#- Where a court lacks jurisdiction, it must down its tools and strike out the proceedings, leaving the party to decide on further steps; there is no residual jurisdiction to transfer the file.
- Mandamus lies only to compel performance of a public duty the respondent has failed to perform.
Court orders
#- 1.The proceedings are terminated
- 2.No orders on costs
- 3.The case file closed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court at Nairobi (Judicial Review Division)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicature Act, sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Mandamus to compel reinstatement as Chief Grade II of Suna Raha Location or re-deployment
The applicant failed to show the public duty subject of the mandamus prayer that the respondent failed to perform
Mandamus to pay dues and arrears/special damages of Kshs. 2,083,079 with interest
Proceedings terminated for want of jurisdiction and failure to demonstrate a compellable public duty
Mandamus to pay general damages of Kshs. 3 million
Proceedings terminated; if dissatisfied with the merits of dismissal the applicant should have filed an ordinary action
Costs of the application
Court ordered no orders on costs
Costs
No orders on 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.
The proceedings are terminated.
No orders on costs.
where a court lacks jurisdiction it downs the tools as the proceeding is struck out with efiect that the party initiating the proceedings retains the prerogative on further steps
the applicant has failed to show the public duty subject of the prayer for mandamus that the respondent failed to perform
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical error 'purpordly' in the judgment text
Judge's surname inconsistently spelled 'Chigiti' and 'Chingiti' within the same judgment
Typographical error 'efiect' in the judgment text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Permanent Secretary/Provincial Administration & Internal Security Office of the President & another; Maengo (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E040 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1548 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review (Employment and Labour Relations Court) – notice of motion dated 08.11.2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1548/eng@2025-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.