Mohammed v County Secretary, Nakuru & 3 others; Kiprono (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2535 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed a third party's petition over a county job dispute, ruling he had no capacity to sue and hadn't used required appeal channels.
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 hear and determine the Application and Petition under Article 162(2) of the Constitution
- 2.Whether the Petitioner has capacity to file and prosecute the Petition on his own behalf, on behalf of the public, and on behalf of the Interested Party
- 3.Whether the Petition is premature for failure to exhaust dispute resolution mechanisms under the County Governments Act and the Public Service Commission Act
- 4.Whether a temporary injunction should issue restraining the 4th Respondent from acting as County Director Land and Physical Planning
Key legal issues
#Capacity of the Petitioner to prosecute the Petition on behalf of himself, the public and the Interested Party
The Petitioner lacks capacity; the Interested Party showed no incapacity to pursue the dispute in his own name, and the dispute is essentially private contractual interest, not public interest
The Interested Party had already personally pursued his contractual rights by protesting to the 2nd Respondent and the Chief Officer. The Petitioner is not privy to the employment contracts, cannot speak to their terms, and did not exhibit the 4th Respondent's contract. The confidential appointment letter highlights the private nature of the terms of service involved.
Exhaustion of statutory dispute resolution mechanisms
Neither the Interested Party nor his proxy the Petitioner exhausted the grievance mechanisms under the Public Service Commission Act and the County Governments Act before approaching the Court
Section 85 of the Public Service Commission Act requires public servants to first appeal a decision of their employer to the Public Service Commission before approaching the Court, with procedure laid down in the Public Service (County Appeals Procedures), 2022. Section 77 of the County Governments Act requires appeals to the Public Service Commission on employment issues. The E&LRC's jurisdiction can only be invoked after these primary mechanisms are exhausted.
Jurisdiction of the E&LRC in the dispute
The E&LRC has jurisdiction over the matters in dispute, but that jurisdiction can only be invoked after exhausting the primary statutory mechanisms
The Respondents argued the Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 162(2). The Court found jurisdiction exists but is conditioned on exhaustion of the statutory appeal mechanisms to the Public Service Commission under the two Acts of Parliament.
Legal principles established
#- Disputes concerning contractual rights and obligations between an employer and employee are private contractual interests which should be pursued by the parties to the contract, not convoluted through third parties into constitutional disputes
- A party must exhaust statutory grievance and dispute resolution mechanisms under the Public Service Commission Act and County Governments Act before invoking the E&LRC's jurisdiction
- A person not privy to a contract of employment has no capacity to enforce it or speak to its terms
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection is sustained
- 2.The Petition and the Application are declined
- 3.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution (jurisdiction objection raised); Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction invoked subject to exhaustion of statutory dispute resolution mechanisms
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the 4th Respondent from exercising duties, executing documents and/or issuing communications on behalf of the County Director Land and Physical Planning
The Preliminary Objection was sustained on grounds of lack of capacity and failure to exhaust statutory dispute resolution mechanisms
Costs
No order on the 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.
It is ordered: a. The Preliminary Objection is sustained. b. The Petition and the Application are declined. c. No order on the costs.
There is no public interest at the heart of the Petition, but contractual interest, which calls on the parties to the contract to come forward, and enforce the contractual rights and obligations, instead of convoluting the dispute through 3rd parties, into a constitutional dispute.
The Petitioner has not established that he has the capacity to present the Petition on behalf of himself, the public and / or the Interested Party.
While the E&LRC has jurisdiction on the matters in dispute, such jurisdiction can only be invoked after the primary mechanisms under the 2 Acts of Parliament above, have been exhausted. The Petition is in violation of the doctrine of exhaustion.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent dates of the Interested Party's appointment/employment: the Interested Party's replying affidavit states he was appointed Director of Lands and Physical Planning on 27th June 2014, but the Court records him confirming employment on 27th November 2014
Internal tension: the Court holds the E&LRC has jurisdiction over the dispute yet sustains a preliminary objection on jurisdiction for failure to exhaust remedies - jurisdiction is conditional rather than absent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Omondi & 16 others v County Government of Nakuru & another (Petition E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3698 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 3698 (KLR)19 Dec 2025followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mohammed v County Secretary, Nakuru & 3 others; Kiprono (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2535 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 7th April 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2535/eng@2025-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.