Henry Kigen & 6 others v Baringo County Governor & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Kabarnet
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Edward M. Muriithi
Judgment Date
October 06, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Henry Kigen & 6 others v Baringo County Governor & 2 others [2020] eKLR. Discover key legal insights and outcomes that shape local governance and community rights. Perfect for legal professionals and enthusiasts.

Case Brief: Henry Kigen & 6 others v Baringo County Governor & 2 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Henry Kigen & 6 Others v. Baringo County Governor & 2 Others
- Case Number: Petition No. 04 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Kabarnet
- Date Delivered: October 6, 2020
- Category of Law: Constitutional Law
- Judge(s): Edward M. Muriithi
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the petition concerning alleged irregularities in the recruitment process conducted by the Baringo County Public Service Board, as well as the capacity of the respondents to be sued.

3. Facts of the Case:
The petitioners, led by Henry Kigen, are challenging the recruitment process of medical personnel by the Baringo County Public Service Board. They allege that the recruitment was marred by nepotism and the appointment of unqualified individuals to sensitive health positions. The petitioners assert that the process violated their constitutional rights to equality and fair administrative action under the Constitution of Kenya. The respondents, including the Baringo County Governor and the County Attorney General, raised preliminary objections regarding the court's jurisdiction and the capacity to sue.

4. Procedural History:
The respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on August 25, 2020, arguing that the petition should be heard in the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC), contending that the issues raised pertained to employment law. The petitioners responded with a replying affidavit, asserting that the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 165(3) of the Constitution. The court reserved its ruling after hearing submissions from both parties on September 29, 2020.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court examined the jurisdictional provisions under Article 165(3) of the Constitution, which allows the High Court to hear cases involving the Bill of Rights, and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, which delineates the jurisdiction of the ELRC.
- Case Law: The court referenced several cases, including *Chimweli Jangaa Mangale & 3 Others v. Hamisi Mohamed Mwawasaa & 15 Others* and *Prof. Daniel N. Mugendi v. Kenyatta University & Others*, which clarified that the High Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional matters and that other courts of equal status can also adjudicate such issues.
- Application: The court reasoned that since the petitioners were not employees of the respondents and were contesting the recruitment process rather than an employment dispute, the ELRC did not have jurisdiction. It concluded that the High Court had the authority to hear the case as it involved constitutional rights violations.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the petition, rejecting the respondents' preliminary objections. The court emphasized the importance of allowing constitutional petitions to proceed without being stifled by jurisdictional technicalities, thereby reinforcing the role of the High Court in upholding the Bill of Rights.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled in favor of the petitioners, affirming its jurisdiction to hear the case regarding alleged irregularities in the recruitment process by the Baringo County Public Service Board. The decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring access to justice and protecting constitutional rights, particularly in matters involving public interest and administrative fairness. The case highlights the delicate balance between specialized court jurisdictions and the overarching authority of the High Court in matters of constitutional significance.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Henry-Kigen--6-others-v-Baringo-County-Governor--2-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1312_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries