Republic v Taita Taveta County Assembly Sectoral Committee on Administration, Security, Devolution, Public Participation, Community Services & Drug Control & 3 others; Governor, County Government of Taita Taveta (Interested Party); Lukindo (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E004 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2379 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court struck out a county employee's judicial review case because he skipped the mandatory appeal to the Public Service Commission first.
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 to entertain the judicial review application given the failure to exhaust the appeal mechanism under section 77 of the County Government Act
- 2.Whether the judicial review application offends the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies
- 3.Whether the preliminary objections by the respondents should be upheld and the application struck out
Key legal issues
#Exhaustion of alternative remedies / jurisdiction
The court lacked jurisdiction as a first instance court because the ex parte applicant failed to exhaust the appeal procedure under section 77 of the County Government Act; the proceedings were premature
The appointment as political advisor is a position within the governance structure of the County Government regulated under the County Government Act. Grievances arising from that employment must be addressed through the mechanisms under the County Government Act and/or the Public Service Commission Act. Section 77 is mandatory, requiring appeal to the Public Service Commission before court. No exceptional circumstances justified bypassing that route, and the applicant filed no submissions to counter the objections.
Failure to file submissions in response to preliminary objections
The ex parte applicant's failure to attend or file written submissions weighed against him and did not place him in good standing
The applicant moved the court by the application dated 4 April 2025 but did not attend court or file any written submissions when the respondents' preliminary objections came up for submissions. The court noted this omission as detracting from the applicant's standing before the court, though the disposition rested principally on want of jurisdiction and non-exhaustion.
Legal principles established
#- Where there is a clear procedure for the redress of a grievance prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed
- Section 77 of the County Government Act provides a mandatory appeal mechanism to the Public Service Commission which must be exhausted before approaching the court
Court orders
#- 1.The judicial review application dated 4 April 2025 is struck out
- 2.Costs to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules (leave granted on 3 April 2025); challenged for want of jurisdiction under Article 234(2)(i) of the Constitution, section 77 of the County Government Act and section 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act
Relief refused
#Order of certiorari to quash the 1st respondent's recommendation of 1 April 2025
Court lacked jurisdiction; the applicant failed to exhaust the statutory appeal mechanism under section 77 of the County Government Act
Order of prohibition stopping the interested party from implementing the recommendations
Same lack of jurisdiction and failure to exhaust alternative remedies; no exceptional circumstances shown
Costs
Costs to the respondents
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.
Accordingly, these proceedings are premature, the court lacks jurisdiction as a first instance under provisions of Section 77 of the County Government Act; there is a failure to exhaust clear procedures of appeal under Section 77 of the County Government Act.
The application is struck out. Costs to the respondents.
the provisions of section 77 of the CGA are mandatory, and the employee of the County Government should invoke the appeal mechanism to the Public Service Commission before approaching the court
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not expressly identify the court in which it was delivered (the coram shows only 'M. MBARŨ, JUDGE' at Mombasa); the court name must be inferred from context
The judgment inconsistently refers to the statutory mechanism as arising from section 77 of the County Government Act and section 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act, at one point stating 'both require an employee aggrieved by the decision of a county government to appeal against such decision to the Public Service Commission'
The judgment variously attributes the recommendation of 1 April 2025 to the 1st respondent and to the 2nd respondent
The case number of the proceedings is not stated anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Taita Taveta County Assembly Sectoral Committee on Administration, Security, Devolution, Public Participation, Community Services & Drug Control & 3 others; Governor, County Government of Taita Taveta (Interested Party); Lukindo (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E004 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2379 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2379/eng@2025-08-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.