Stella Atambo v The Hon. Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya & Judicial Service Commission
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court struck out a constitutional petition, confirming employment disputes must start as a Memorandum of Claim, not a petition.
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 petition is a proper petition, or whether it should have been brought as an ordinary claim under the ELRC Rules
- 2.Whether the petition is ripe and justiciable
- 3.Whether exhaustion of alternative remedies bars the petition
- 4.Whether a constitutional petition is the proper vehicle for the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the petition was a proper constitutional petition
It was not; the dispute is a fact-specific administrative-fairness challenge to a Notice to Show Cause that should have been brought as an ordinary claim
The court held that Article 41 rights are enacted in the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act, which provide adequate remedies and enforcement mechanisms. Rule 10(3) of the ELRC Rules permits constitutional rights to be urged in a Memorandum of Claim. Proceeding by petition loses a crucial stage - evidence attached to a Memorandum of Response - as illustrated by the petitioner's own application challenging the Replying Affidavit. No interpretation of the Constitution over rights not provided for under statute was required.
Whether the Karume principle on prescribed procedures applies
Yes; where a statute prescribes a procedure for redress, it should be strictly followed
Relying on Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume as affirmed in Almer Farm and Muroki Estates, the court held that where the Constitution or an Act of Parliament prescribes a clear procedure for redress of a grievance, that procedure must be strictly followed, and quasi-judicial jurisdiction cannot be assumed for convenience contrary to Globe Developers.
Whether ripeness and exhaustion barred the petition
The court did not determine these in the petitioner's favour; the petition failed on the improper-vehicle ground
The petitioner argued ripeness was satisfied because a threatened violation was imminent, citing Murage and Lubengu, and that exhaustion was no bar since no alternative forum was named, citing Karume and Muthinja. The court did not rule on these doctrines, instead disposing of the petition on the ground that it was not a proper petition.
Legal principles established
#- Where the Constitution or an Act of Parliament prescribes a clear procedure for redress of a grievance, that procedure should be strictly followed
- Employment disputes should be brought by Memorandum of Claim, with constitutional violations argued under Rule 10(3) of the ELRC Rules, unless statutory remedies are shown to be insufficient
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is struck out as an unnecessary and improper petition
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 162(2)(a), 165(3)(b), 22 and 23(3) of the Constitution and section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Continuation of the petition as a constitutional petition
The dispute is in substance a fact-specific administrative-fairness challenge to a Notice to Show Cause that should have been brought as a Memorandum of Claim under Rule 10(3) of the ELRC Rules
Declaration that the petition is ripe, justiciable and properly pleaded
The court found the petition raised no question requiring interpretation or application of the Constitution
Costs
Each party to bear its 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.
Accordingly, as the petition is unnecessary, it is struck out. Each party to bear its own costs.
An ordinary dispute invoking the constitutional petition route. This is unnecessary. It is not a proper petition.
Therefore, where the Constitution or an Act of Parliament prescribes a clear procedure for redress of any particular grievance, that procedure should be strictly followed.
The petition did not raise any question of the interpretation or application of the Constitution.
Issues in the judgment
#Caption garbled: 'TH JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION' appears split across lines for the 2nd respondent
Petition dated 2026 with judgment in October 2026; dates internally consistent but unusually recent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stella Atambo v The Hon. Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya & Judicial Service Commission", Case Analysis (2026). Petition No. E125 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2778/eng@2026-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.