Benard Oichoe Kinara & 18 Others v Maasai Mara University, The National Assembly & The Attorney General; Commission on Administrative Justice (Interested Party)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ordered Maasai Mara University to pay 19 former part-time lecturers their dues with interest, but ruled it cannot force Parliament to act.
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 Petitioners have established an employment relationship with the 1st Respondent
- 2.Whether the 1st Respondent violated the Petitioners' right to fair administrative action
- 3.Whether the 2nd Respondent is obliged to act on CAJ reports
- 4.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought
- 5.Whether the Commission lawfully discharged its mandate
- 6.Whether the respondents are legally bound to comply with the recommendations contained in the Commission's determination
Key legal issues
#Whether the National Assembly was obliged to act on the CAJ report
The suit against the National Assembly was dismissed; no qualifying report under section 42(4) of the CAJ Act was shown to have been submitted to trigger its duty.
Section 42(4) of the CAJ Act requires the Commission to report a public body's non-compliance to the National Assembly, which then takes appropriate action. The Court found the letter before it was not the statutory report contemplated, and neither the Petitioners nor the Interested Party showed they triggered the steps for Parliament to consider the matter. The Court agreed with the 2nd Respondent's submissions and dismissed the suit against it.
Whether the 1st Respondent violated the Petitioners' right to fair administrative action
Yes; the 1st Respondent repeatedly abridged the right to fair administrative action under Article 47 by delaying payment despite acknowledging the claims.
From the correspondence and the Interested Party's actions, the University acknowledged the claims, verified approximately 80% as genuine, undertook to pay, then relied on shifting explanations of record deficiencies and lack of funds. The Court held that although the Petitioners articulated the infringed rights inelegantly, the Article 47 right was repeatedly abridged, and the Petitioners only sought what they were entitled to.
Quantum of the sums due to the Petitioners
The sums due from the 1st Respondent to the 19 Petitioners are as enumerated in Part III Para 4 of the Petition, with interest at court rates from the date of judgment.
The Court accepted the itemized figures in the Petition, listing individual amounts for each of the 19 Petitioners across the Kisii and Kilgoris campuses, and awarded interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full, with costs borne exclusively by the 1st Respondent.
Legal principles established
#- The Court lacks power to direct Parliament; Parliament must be appropriately moved before it acts in public administration matters.
- A letter from the CAJ that is not the report contemplated under statute cannot trigger Parliament's duty to act under section 42(4) of the CAJ Act.
- A public body that repeatedly acknowledges claims and shifts positions on payment breaches the constitutional right to fair administrative action under Article 47.
Court orders
#- 1.Suit against the 2nd Respondent (National Assembly) dismissed with no order as to costs
- 2.Declaration that the sums due from the 1st Respondent to the 19 Petitioners are as enumerated in Part III Para 4 of the Petition
- 3.Interest on the sums awarded at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 4.Costs of the Petition to be borne exclusively by the 1st Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Mandamus compelling the National Assembly to consider, debate and act on the CAJ report
The Court lacks power to direct Parliament; the qualifying report under section 42(4) of the CAJ Act was not shown to have been triggered
General damages to be assessed by the Court
Not granted; the Court instead awarded the quantified sums with interest and costs
Costs
Costs of the Petition to be borne exclusively by the 1st Respondent; suit against the 2nd Respondent dismissed with no order as to 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.
Whereas the Court has many powers, it lacks the power to direct Parliament.
The letter from the Commission on Administrative Justice which is before this Court is not the report contemplated under statute for Parliament to act.
In my considered view, the suit against the 2 nd Respondent is misplaced and accordingly dismissed albeit with no order as to costs.
it is clear the right to fair administrative action under Article 47 has been abridged by the 1st Respondent repeatedly.
The Petitioners will have interest on the sums above at Court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full.
Issues in the judgment
#Petition dated 24th October 2025 but judgment delivered 29th September 2026; caption spells 'CONTRAVAVENTION'
Petitioners' names in caption ('Benard Oichoe Kinara') differ from names listed in the quantum schedule ('Benard Kinara', 'Bernard O. Okengo')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Benard Oichoe Kinara & 18 Others v Maasai Mara University, The National Assembly & The Attorney General; Commission on Administrative Justice (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition E014 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2637/eng@2026-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.