Nyamira County Public Service Board & 2 others v Anari (Appeal E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1749 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed Magistrates' Courts cannot award damages for constitutional rights violations, so employees claiming such compensation must file in the High Court or ELRC.
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 exhaustion doctrine is applicable to the instant case, in light of Article 234(2)(i) of the Constitution, section 77 of the County Governments Act and sections 85, 86 and 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act
- 2.Whether the Magistrate's Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine claims for compensation for loss or damage suffered due to violation or denial of fundamental rights
Key legal issues
#Whether the exhaustion doctrine barred the claim before the Magistrate's Court
The doctrine was inapplicable as no appeal process to the Public Service Commission or County Public Service Board had been triggered; the Magistrate correctly rejected the argument
The court reasoned that although statutory alternative dispute resolution mechanisms exist, they must first be triggered. In this case no dispute had been lodged with the County Public Service Board and no appeal to the Public Service Commission was contemplated. The suit was a fresh claim, not an appeal, so the appellate exhaustion provisions were not engaged and the preliminary objection on this ground was premature.
Whether the Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction to grant compensation for violation of constitutional rights
The Magistrate's Court lacked jurisdiction over prayer no. 24(a), which sought declarations and damages for constitutional violations, by dint of section 8(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act
Section 8(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act expressly bars Magistrates' Courts from hearing claims for compensation for loss or damage suffered in consequence of violation of rights in the Bill of Rights. The Respondent's prayer 24(a) sought such relief, which divested the Magistrate of jurisdiction over the claim as presented, notwithstanding that the salary deprivation issue was within the court's competence.
Legal principles established
#- Where a dispute has not first been referred to or triggered before the County Public Service Board or the Public Service Commission, the exhaustion doctrine under Article 234(2)(i), section 77 of the County Governments Act and sections 85, 86 and 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act is not applicable
- A Magistrate's Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine claims for compensation for loss or damage suffered in consequence of a violation, infringement or denial of a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights, per section 8(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act
- The exhaustion doctrine does not deny courts their jurisdiction; there are exceptional instances where court intervention is available even where alternative statutory mechanisms exist
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed to the extent that the Magistrate's Court had no jurisdiction over prayer no. 24(a) of the claim, which raised constitutional issues beyond its mandate under section 8 of the Magistrates' Courts Act
- 2.The claim was to have been presented in a manner that divested the Learned Magistrate of jurisdiction; the preliminary objection should have been upheld on that score
- 3.Appellants to have costs at the Magistrates Court only
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrate's Court at Nyamira
- Not stated in judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal against a preliminary objection ruling of the Magistrate's Court; the memorandum of appeal invoked, inter alia, Article 234(2)(i) of the Constitution, sections 85, 86 and 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act, section 77 of the County Governments Act, section 8 of the Magistrates' Courts Act and section 3 of the Judicature Act
Relief refused
#Upholding of the preliminary objection in its entirety on the exhaustion doctrine ground
The court found the exhaustion doctrine inapplicable because no dispute had been triggered before the County Public Service Board or the Public Service Commission
Costs of the appeal
The court limited costs to the Magistrates Court only
Costs
The Appellant will have costs at the Magistrates Court only (no costs of the appeal awarded)
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 process for an appeal to the Public Service Commission or the County Public Service Board had not been triggered. As such, on the first issue I find and hold that the Learned Magistrate did not fall in error by rejecting the argument on the exhaustion doctrine.
Nothing in this Act may be construed as conferring jurisdiction on a magistrate's court to hear and determine claims for compensation for loss or damage sufiered in consequence of a violation, infringement, denial of a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights.
The appeal is allowed and the Appellant will have costs at the Magistrates Court only.
The preliminary objection should have been upheld as the claim presented by the Respondent was couched in a manner that divested the Learned Magistrate of jurisdiction despite the issue of deprivation of salaries being one within the scope and competence of the Magistrate's Court.
Issues in the judgment
#The parties are referred to as 'Appellants' and 'Respondent' although the brief format expects first-instance roles; this judgment is itself an appeal from the Magistrate's Court ruling of 17th September 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyamira County Public Service Board & 2 others v Anari (Appeal E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1749 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (ELRC Appeal from Magistrate's Court at Nyamira). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1749/eng@2025-06-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.