Chrysostom Makhumbiri Agava v County Government of Vihiga & 4 Others
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed a former Vihiga County officer's challenge to his contract non-renewal because he filed judicial review without first obtaining the court's mandatory leave.
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 application is properly before the court
- 2.Whether the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought
- 3.Costs
Key legal issues
#Whether leave is required before instituting judicial review proceedings in the ELRC
Yes - leave is mandatory; the FAAA did not displace the Law Reform Act and Order 53 requirements in the ELRC
Rule 10(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 expressly requires judicial review to be instituted under Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Order 53 Rule 1 prohibits prerogative order applications without leave. The court therefore held the FAAA route urged by the Applicant inapplicable before this court, sustaining the preliminary objection.
Whether the non-renewal of the Applicant's fixed-term contract was unlawful
No - the contract expired by effluxion of time and no legitimate expectation of renewal was proven
The court found, for completeness despite dismissing the application, that the contract expired by effluxion of time. The Applicant failed to prove any express or implied promise or conduct by the 1st Respondent creating a legitimate expectation of renewal, nor any legal or contractual duty to renew upon expiry.
Whether judicial review was the appropriate vehicle for the dispute
No - the dispute was a private-law employment matter for which an ordinary cause would have been appropriate
The court opined that the dispute concerned an employment relationship in the realm of private law, and that an ordinary cause rather than judicial review, which falls within public law, would have been the more appropriate avenue for the Applicant's grievances.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review proceedings in the ELRC must be instituted under Sections 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and leave is required before institution
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 15th December 2025 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, via Rule 10(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Relief refused
#Declaration that non-renewal of contract was procedurally flawed, baseless and unfair
Application dismissed without leave; contract expired by effluxion of time with no proven legitimate expectation
Certiorari quashing PSC decisions of 26th February 2025 and 11th June 2025
Proceedings filed without mandatory leave; certiorari also out of time per Order 53 Rule 2
Twelve months' salary compensation for unfair termination
No unfair termination established; fixed-term contract carried no expectation of renewal
Damages for breach of contract
No breach proven; no obligation to renew or conduct appraisal established
Mandamus compelling reinstatement/re-engagement
No statutory or public duty demonstrated to support mandamus
Costs
No orders as to costs - each party to bear their own 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.
This Court finds and holds that the PO by the 1st, 2nd, 4th & 5th Respondents dated 21st January 2026 has merits and is hereby sustained
The application was filed without leave of court and the proceedings are thus improperly before the court. On that ground the same are hereby dismissed
the contract between the Applicant and the 1st respondent expired by effluxion of time. The Applicant failed to prove any legitimate expectation arising from express or implied conduct or promise by the 1st Respondent through its authorized officers
a)That the application by the Applicant dated 15th December 2025 is hereby dismissed. b)No orders as to costs
Issues in the judgment
#Final orders numbered '50' under heading VII, repeating earlier paragraph number
Review case number inconsistently cited
Heading misspelt 'INRODUCTION'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chrysostom Makhumbiri Agava v County Government of Vihiga & 4 Others", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review No. E011 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2555/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.