Erick Omeny v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Industrialization,Trade & Enterprise Development; Flora Mutahi & another (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Machakos
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
D. K. Kemei
Judgment Date
October 07, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Erick Omeny v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Industrialization, Trade & Enterprise Development, along with Flora Mutahi & another as interested parties [2020] eKLR. Uncover key insights and legal implications of this ruling.

Case Brief: Erick Omeny v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Industrialization,Trade & Enterprise Development; Flora Mutahi & another (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Erick Omeny v. Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Industrialization, Trade & Enterprise Development
- Case Number: Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Machakos, Constitutional and Human Rights Division
- Date Delivered: October 7, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): D. K. Kemei
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues the court must resolve include:
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition challenging the appointment of the interested parties to the board of directors of the Anti-Counterfeit Authority.
- If the court has jurisdiction, what orders should be granted.

3. Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, Erick Omeny, filed a constitutional petition on July 10, 2020, alleging a contravention of rights or fundamental freedoms under various articles of the Kenyan Constitution, as well as under the Public Service (Value and Principles) Act and the Anti-Counterfeit Act. The respondent is the Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Industrialization, Trade & Enterprise Development, and there are two interested parties: Flora Mutahi and Stephen Mutoro. The petitioner challenged the appointment of these interested parties to the board of directors of the Anti-Counterfeit Authority. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a notice of withdrawal of the petition, claiming it had been overtaken by events.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed as follows:
- The petitioner filed the petition on July 10, 2020.
- A preliminary objection was raised on July 27, 2020, by the 2nd interested party, asserting that the High Court lacked jurisdiction due to the provisions of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act.
- On August 13, 2020, the petitioner filed a notice of withdrawal of the petition.
- The court directed that the preliminary objection be canvassed through written submissions, leading to further arguments regarding jurisdiction and the appropriateness of the withdrawal.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered several statutes, including Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, which delineates the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) in employment-related disputes, and Article 162(2) of the Constitution, which establishes the ELRC's jurisdiction over labor and employment matters.
- Case Law: The court referenced cases such as *Okiya Omtata Okoiti v. Attorney General* and *Daniel M. Mugendi v. Kenyatta University*, which assert that disputes related to employment and labor relations fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ELRC. The court also cited *Harry John Paul Arigi & 2 Others v. Board Kenya Ports Authority*, which clarified the procedure for withdrawing petitions.
- Application: The court reasoned that the petition fundamentally concerned employment-related issues regarding the appointments of the interested parties. It concluded that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the ELRC was the appropriate forum. The court noted that the petitioner did not follow the correct procedure for withdrawal and thus declined to accept the withdrawal, ultimately deciding to transfer the case to the ELRC instead of dismissing it.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the petition and ordered the transfer of the case to the Employment and Labour Relations Court. This decision underscores the importance of jurisdictional boundaries between courts in Kenya, particularly in employment-related disputes.

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

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya determined that it lacked jurisdiction over a constitutional petition concerning the appointment of directors to the Anti-Counterfeit Authority and transferred the case to the Employment and Labour Relations Court. This ruling highlights the procedural requirements for withdrawing petitions and the delineation of jurisdiction between the High Court and the ELRC, reinforcing the structured approach to handling employment-related legal matters in Kenya.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Erick-Omeny-v-Cabinet-Secretary-Ministry-of-Industrialization-Trade--Enterprise-Development-Flora-Mutahi--another-Interested-Parties-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1665_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries