Alex Lubwa Mwela v Benedict Shalimba Machanja & 3 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Kakamega
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. W. Musyoka
Judgment Date
October 02, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
2
Explore the case summary of Alex Lubwa Mwela v Benedict Shalimba Machanja & 3 others [2020] eKLR, analyzing key judgments and legal implications. Perfect for legal professionals and students.

Case Brief: Alex Lubwa Mwela v Benedict Shalimba Machanja & 3 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Alex Lubwa Mwela v. Benedict Shalimba Machanja & Others
- Case Number: Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Kakamega
- Date Delivered: October 2, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. W. Musyoka
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue presented before the court was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear a petition challenging the recruitment process of an Assistant Chief, which the petitioner claimed was unconstitutional and violated specific provisions of the Kenyan Constitution.

3. Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, Alex Lubwa Mwela, a resident of Bulovi Sub-Location, initiated the case concerning the recruitment of an Assistant Chief for his area. Although he was not a candidate for the position, he expressed grievances regarding the recruitment process, alleging that it contravened Articles 3, 10, 27, and 56 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The 1st respondent, Benedict Shalimba Machanja, was selected as the successful candidate, prompting the petitioner to question the legality of the recruitment process.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with the filing of a petition by the petitioner. In response, the 2nd respondent (the Attorney General) submitted a Preliminary Objection on July 14, 2020, claiming that the matter fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Court due to its nature involving employment and recruitment. The court directed that the Preliminary Objection be addressed through written submissions. However, only the petitioner submitted written arguments, while the 2nd respondent failed to provide any, leading the court to consider the objection inadequately supported.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court referenced Article 165 of the Constitution, which grants the High Court jurisdiction to address constitutional questions, including those related to actions taken under the authority of the Constitution or any law.
- Case Law: The court cited *Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. West End Distribution Ltd* [1969] EA, emphasizing that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law and not reliant on evidence.
- Application: The court reasoned that since the petitioner had no personal interest in the employment matter and raised constitutional questions regarding the recruitment process, the High Court held the appropriate jurisdiction. The absence of the 2nd respondent's written submissions weakened their objection, leading the court to determine that the matter should proceed on its merits.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that the Preliminary Objection was disallowed, affirming that the case was properly before the High Court. The court directed that the petition be listed for mention to establish further directions for its disposal.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled in favor of the petitioner, disallowing the Preliminary Objection raised by the 2nd respondent. This decision underscored the High Court's jurisdiction to address constitutional matters even when they intersect with employment issues. The ruling emphasizes the importance of safeguarding constitutional rights in recruitment processes and the need for proper legal representation in court proceedings.


Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

This is the end of the summary preview.