Chere v Board of Directors Lake Basin Development Authority & 4 others; Lake Basin Development Authority & 120 others (Interested Parties) (Petition E048 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1815 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment and Labour Relations Court refused to throw out a petition challenging the Lake Basin Development Authority board appointments, ruling the case can proceed to a full hearing.
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 firm of M/s V.A. Nyamodi & Company is properly on record for the 1st and 3rd Respondents.
- 2.Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition dated 4th November 2024.
- 3.Whether the issues raised in the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 5th May 2025 have merit.
Key legal issues
#Whether the firm of M/s V.A. Nyamodi & Company was properly on record for the 1st and 3rd Respondents and the 1st Interested Party
The firm was properly on record; Order 9 Rule 9 CPR does not apply because the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024 comprehensively govern appearance and CPR applies only to fill lacunae.
The Petitioner argued under Order 9 Rule 9 CPR that the firm had to seek leave to come on record, relying on Lalji Bhimji Shangani and Monica Moraa. The Court held that the ELRC Procedure Rules 2024 contain no gap on appearance by counsel, so the CPR is not invoked and objections to the firm's appearance were misplaced and dismissed outrightly.
Whether the ELRC has jurisdiction over a petition challenging appointment of a State Corporation's board in the absence of an employer-employee relationship
The objection to jurisdiction failed; the Petitioner had locus standi under Articles 22 and 258 and factual questions could not be resolved in limine.
The objectors relied on Okiya Omtata Okoiti to argue that board appointments are not labour disputes under section 12 ELR Act. The Petitioner relied on Okumu v Badi, distinguishing Omtata as concerning constitutional commissions. The Court held that enforcing Bill of Rights in recruitment of State Corporation employees falls within its jurisdiction and that the Petitioner had locus standi under Article 22/258, declining to dismiss the petition at the preliminary stage.
Whether the grounds in the preliminary objection were pure points of law
Other than the jurisdictional ground, the grounds bore factual aspects calling for proof and could not be raised as preliminary objections.
Invoking Mukisa Biscuit, the Petitioner argued that grounds such as limitation and failure to meet the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold were contestable factual matters unfit for determination in limine. The Court agreed that aspects requiring establishment of facts cannot be determined at the preliminary stage.
Legal principles established
#- A petitioner invoking Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution has locus standi to bring proceedings on behalf of the public even without an employer-employee relationship with the respondents.
- Where the ELRC (Procedure) Rules make provision for appearance by counsel, the Civil Procedure Rules are not invoked, and objections based on Order 9 Rule 9 are misplaced.
- Issues calling for the establishment of facts cannot be determined on a preliminary objection.
Court orders
#- 1.Objections to the firm of M/s VA Nyamodi & Company being on record for the 1st and 3rd Respondents and the 1st Interested Party dismissed outrightly.
- 2.Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 5th May 2025 dismissed with no order as to costs.
- 3.The Court declined the invitation to dismiss the Petition; the Petition proceeds to substantive hearing.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution and sections 12(1) and (2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Striking out of the Petition and Notice of Motion in limine as sought by the objectors
The Court found the Petitioner had locus standi and that factual aspects of the Petition cannot be determined in limine.
Costs of the preliminary objection
Objection dismissed without costs.
Costs
Objection dismissed albeit with no order as to 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.
Having had regard to the Rules of this Court there is no bar for the firm of M/s VA Nyamodi & Company being on record for the 1st and 3rd Respondents as well as the 1st Interested Party.
The Civil Procedure Rules are only invoked where there is lacunae in the Rules of this Court and the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024 do not have any gap as to the appearance of parties by counsel or in person.
The Court is of the firm view the Petitioner has locus standi to bring this Petition.
There are aspects of the Petition that will call for the establishment of facts and those cannot be determined in limine.
The Court declines the invitation to dismiss the Petition as sought by the 1st and 3rd Respondents and the 1st Interested Party. Objection dismissed albeit with no order as to costs. Orders accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment attributes a passage that it earlier quoted from Timothy Otuya Afubwa v County Government of Trans Nzoia to the Okumu v Badi case, conflating the two authorities.
The Petition is referred to inconsistently as dated 5th November 2024 in the preliminary objection and 4th November 2024 in the issues for determination.
The preliminary objection is dated inconsistently: 5th November 2024 at the outset and 5th May 2025 in the issues and disposition.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chere v Board of Directors Lake Basin Development Authority & 4 others; Lake Basin Development Authority & 120 others (Interested Parties) (Petition E048 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1815 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 5th November 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1815/eng@2025-06-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.