Lel v Uasin Gishu County Public Service Board & another; Bulbul & 6 others (Interested Parties) (Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3765 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed a former county legal officer's bid for allowances because it was filed as a bare application instead of a proper suit.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application filed by the applicant
- 2.If so, whether the Applicant is entitled to the orders sought in his application
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to entertain a standalone miscellaneous application seeking substantive employment benefits
The court lacks jurisdiction because the application is not anchored on a statement of claim, petition, judicial review application or originating summons as prescribed by the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024
The ELRC Rules limit institution of suits to statements of claim, petitions and judicial review. A notice of motion is not a prescribed mode of instituting a suit and cannot sustain a claim for substantive rights such as payment of allowances, which require evidence at a full hearing. The prescribed mode of initiation is jurisdictional, and Article 159(2)(d) does not cure such a defect.
Whether Article 159(2)(d) (overriding objective) can save a procedurally defective suit
No; procedural steps that are jurisdictional prerequisites cannot be cured by Article 159
Relying on Scope Telematics and the Supreme Court decision in Patricia Cherotich Sawe, the court held that Article 159(2)(d) is not a panacea for procedural shortfalls where the defect goes to jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a pure question of law and proceedings filed without it cannot be salvaged by the overriding objective.
Legal principles established
#- A notice of motion cannot be used to claim substantive rights; such claims must be anchored on a substantive suit
- Article 159(2) cannot cure proceedings filed without jurisdiction; jurisdiction is a matter of law, not procedure
- Failure to institute a suit in the proper manner goes to the root of the competence of the suit
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection of the 7th Interested Party is upheld
- 2.The application dated 25th April, 2025 is dismissed
- 3.No orders for costs
- 4.The applicant is at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the court properly through a substantive suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 and the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Relief refused
#Payment of allowances (prosecutorial, non-practicing, special legal, responsibility, entertainment and robe allowances) to the Applicant and legal officers
The application sought substantive orders through a Notice of Motion not anchored on a substantive suit; jurisdiction not properly invoked
Costs of the application
The court declined to award costs
Costs
No orders for costs; each party to bear their own costs (implied by 'There shall be no orders for 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.
For these reasons I find merit in the preliminary objection and uphold the same. The application herein is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders for costs.
For avoidance of doubt, the substantive prayers in the application have not been determined and the applicant is at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the court properly through a substantive suit.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step.
A notice of motion cannot be used to claim substantive rights.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lel v Uasin Gishu County Public Service Board & another; Bulbul & 6 others (Interested Parties) (Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3765 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Miscellaneous Application dated 25th April, 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3765/eng@2025-12-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.