Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2025] KEELRC 3749 (KLR)

Wanjohi v Uasin Gishu County Public Service Board & 2 others (Petition E009 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3749 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 December 2025
MOM. Onyango
2,125 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court on a Notice of Motion dated 7th September 2025 by the Petitioner, Kimani Wanjohi, a Member of the Uasin Gishu County Assembly, seeking conservatory orders to suspend the 1st Respondent's appointment of the Interested Parties to the Eldoret City Board and to restrain the Uasin Gishu County Assembly from vetting the nominees. The Petitioner alleged the appointments violated constitutional and statutory requirements on inclusivity, non-discrimination, ethnic diversity, representation of youth, persons with disabilities and marginalized groups, citing Articles 10, 27, 54, 55, 56, 73, 174 and 232, the County Governments Act and the National Cohesion and Integration Act. The 1st and 3rd Respondents opposed, contending the application was premature, speculative, an abuse of process, and outside the Court's jurisdiction for want of an employer-employee relationship; the 1st Respondent also raised a Preliminary Objection dated 16th October 2025. The Court framed three issues and first dismissed the Preliminary Objection, holding the ELRC has jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) and section 12 of the ELRC Act, that constitutional issues do not oust that jurisdiction, and that the objections were not pure points of law. On the motion, applying the settled conservatory-order principles, the Court found the issues weighty and arguable but unsupported by evidence, so no prima facie case was established; it further held the Petition would not be rendered nugatory since it retains power to nullify any appointments later found unconstitutional, and the public interest did not favour the orders. Both the motion and the Preliminary Objection were dismissed; the Petition is to be heard on a priority basis and costs of the motion abide its outcome.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Preliminary Objection was merited

Holding

Not merited; the issues raised require interrogation of facts and judicial discretion and are not pure points of law, and the ELRC has jurisdiction

Reasoning

Applying Mukisa Biscuit, a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law disposing of the matter without further evidence. The petition challenges the legality of appointments to a statutory public body, implicating public employment and devolution governance. The ELRC is clothed with jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) and section 12 of the ELRC Act; constitutional questions do not oust it. Prematurity also fails since threatened violations ground constitutional litigation.

p. 4
02

Whether a prima facie case warranting conservatory orders was established

Holding

No; the allegations, though weighty and arguable, were unsupported by evidence on the documents filed

Reasoning

The court accepted the issues raised were weighty and deserving of full interrogation, but found the Petitioner had not supported the averments with evidence, so no prima facie case was established. The Petition would not be rendered nugatory because the court retains power to nullify any appointments later found unconstitutional, and the public interest did not favour halting the process on the record as it stood.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The ELRC has jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) and section 12 of the ELRC Act over disputes concerning appointments to public office, and the presence of constitutional issues does not divest it of jurisdiction
  • Constitutional litigation may be commenced on a threatened violation; a party need not await completion of an impugned process
  • Guiding principles for conservatory orders: prima facie case with likelihood of success, petition would otherwise be rendered nugatory, and public interest
  • Constitutional compliance in the constitution of public bodies is mandatory

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 7th September 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.The Preliminary Objection dated 16th October 2025 is dismissed
  3. 3.The Petition shall be heard and determined on a priority basis
  4. 4.Costs of the Notice of Motion shall abide the outcome of the Petition
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Article 23(3) of the Constitution; Rule 23 of the Mutunga Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wanjohi v Uasin Gishu County Public Service Board & 2 others (Petition E009 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3749 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3749/eng@2025-12-22

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.