Francis Awino v June Teclar Chepkemei & Kenya Tourism Board (Interested Party)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court struck out a public interest challenge to a state corporation CEO appointment, ruling such petitions belong in the High Court.
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 instant petition
- 2.Whether the Respondent met the requirements for the office of Chief Executive Officer of the Interested Party
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELRC has jurisdiction over a public interest petition challenging a public appointment
The Court lacks jurisdiction; a public interest litigant is outside the categories of persons granted access to the ELRC by statute
Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital v Gikenyi, the ELRC's jurisdiction extends to pre-employment disputes involving persons identified in Section 12 of the ELRC Act and related laws. The Petitioner styled himself a public interest litigant and human rights defender, a category not covered by the Employment Act, Labour Relations Act or Labour Institutions Act. The proper forum is the High Court, and the Court must down its tools.
Whether the Respondent met the requirements for the office of CEO of the Kenya Tourism Board
Not determined; the issue fell away as dependent on the jurisdictional finding
The court framed this issue as dependent on the answer to the jurisdiction question. Having found it lacked jurisdiction, it did not reach the merits of the Respondent's qualifications under Section 37(2) of the Tourism Act, leaving those submissions unaddressed.
Legal principles established
#- Pre-employment labour disputes involving parties identified in Section 12 of the ELRC Act are within the exclusive domain of the ELRC; disputes beyond the explicitly stated classes must be instituted in the High Court
- Jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.The petition dated 22nd January 2026 is struck out with no orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 162(2)(a) and 165(3)(b) of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital v Gikenyi; Section 12 of the ELRC Act
Relief refused
#All prayers in the petition (declarations, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, audit order, costs)
Court lacked jurisdiction as the Petitioner was a public interest litigant outside the categories of persons with access to the ELRC
Costs
No orders 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.
Consequently, the petition dated 22nd January 2026 is struck out with no orders as to costs.
Any dispute beyond those explicitly stated class must be instituted in the High Court.
Jurisdiction everything and without it, a court has no power to make one more step
The Court can suo motu determine the issue even without being prompted by a party.
Issues in the judgment
#Petitioner's submissions date given as 2020, inconsistent with 2026 petition timeline
Citation for Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital given as '(2026) 50 (KLR)', incomplete citation
Appointment date stated as 24th March 2024 in submissions versus Gazette Notice dated 19th March 2024 and assumption of office 1st April 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Francis Awino v June Teclar Chepkemei & Kenya Tourism Board (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Petition No. E022 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2739/eng@2026-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.