Abdille v Social Health Authority (SHA) & 3 others (Petition E078 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2027 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 applicant established a ground for review of the Ruling of 29.05.2025
- 2.Whether the instant petition, having been conclusively determined, can be consolidated with ELRC Petition No. E042 of 2025 and ELRC Cause No. E1030 of 2023
- 3.Whether the orders of 29.05.2025 conflict with the orders in ELRC Cause E1030 of 2023
- 4.Whether any staff of the defunct NHIF have been prejudiced by the transitional provisions as elaborated in the ruling
- 5.Whether the temporary orders in ELRC Petition E042/2025 are contradictory to the final orders in the instant petition
Key legal issues
#Whether grounds for review were established
No ground for review was established
The Court found that the applicant had not shown an error apparent on the record, fresh evidence, or manifest injustice justifying review. The applicant's real grievance was dissatisfaction with the ruling of 29.05.2025, which could only be pursued by way of appeal, not review. On that finding the application had to fail.
Whether consolidation was possible
Consolidation was misconceived because the instant petition was finally determined
Rule 61 permits consolidation only where it is practical and appropriate to proceed with issues in the suits simultaneously. Since the ruling of 29.05.2025 conclusively determined the instant petition, nothing remained of it to consolidate with the pending matters.
Whether there was conflict between the orders in the instant petition and those in ELRC Cause E1030/2023
The orders are reinforced, not in conflict
The temporary orders in E1030/2023 found that SHA was entitled to recruit for vacancies; the ruling of 29.05.2025 also accepts recruitment but directs that it be done by open competitive advertisement with priority to qualified former NHIF staff. The instant ruling dealt with the manner of recruitment, which was the main dispute.
Whether the interim orders in ELRC Petition E042/2025 contradicted the final orders herein
The interim orders are complimentary and consistent with the final orders
The interim orders in E042/2025 addressed specific grievances about establishment approval, exit packages and deployment particulars, and directed compromise. Any difficulty arising from those orders can be remedied by a variation application in that petition, not by review in the instant petition.
Legal principles established
#- Dissatisfaction with a ruling is a ground for appeal, not review; review requires error apparent on the record, fresh evidence or manifest injustice
- Consolidation is only available where the suits can proceed simultaneously; a conclusively determined suit cannot be consolidated with pending matters
- Staff recruited under an illegal and unconstitutional internal advertisement cannot hold onto that process; they may only serve as temporary staff pending the transitional competitive recruitment
Court orders
#- 1.The application for consolidation and review by the notice of motion dated 20th June 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the proceedings
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 (Rules 45, 47, 74) and Articles 41, 43(f), 47, 50, 53(1)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the Ruling dated 29th May 2025
The applicant failed to establish any known reason for review and the ruling conclusively determined the petition
Review and setting aside/varying the Ruling dated 29th May 2025
No error apparent on record, fresh evidence or manifest injustice; dissatisfaction with the ruling entitles the applicant to appeal, not review
Consolidation of the suit with ELRC Petition No. E042 of 2025 and ELRC Cause No. E1030 of 2023
The instant petition has been conclusively determined; nothing is left to justify consolidation
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the proceedings
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 applicant has failed to establish any known reason for review
such dissatisfaction does not justify a review but could entitle the applicant to appeal
Nothing is left of the instant petition to justify consolidation with the matters said to be pending before the Court.
In conclusion, the application for consolidation and review by the notice of motion dated 20th June 2025 is hereby dismissed and each party to bear own costs of the proceedings.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently refers to the related cause as both E1030 of 2023 and E1030 of 2025
The judgment refers to ELRC Petition E042/2025 and E045/2025 interchangeably when discussing the interim orders
The petitioner's replying affidavit refers to a petition dated 28.04.2025 while the applicants refer to a petition dated 28.05.2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abdille v Social Health Authority (SHA) & 3 others (Petition E078 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2027 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi ELRC Petition No. E078 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2027/eng@2025-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.