Masud Farah Bille & another v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & 4 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Garissa
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. C. Kariuki
Judgment Date
October 28, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3

Case Brief: Masud Farah Bille & another v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & 4 others [2020] eKLR


1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Masud Farah Bille & Salah Dubat Sigat v. The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & Others
- Case Number: Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Garissa
- Date Delivered: 28th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. C. Kariuki
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues for resolution by the court include:
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application regarding the appointment of the 4th Respondent as Chief II Gurufa Location.
- Whether the 4th Respondent meets the qualifications for the position as stipulated in the advertisement.
- Whether the recruitment process violated constitutional provisions regarding fairness and transparency.

3. Facts of the Case:
The petitioners, Masud Farah Bille and Salah Dubat Sigat, applied for the position of Chief II Gurufa Location, advertised by the Ministry of Interior and Coordination on October 14, 2019. The advertisement specified that candidates must be at least 30 years old, hold a minimum of a C plain in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE), and be residents of Gurufa Location. Despite these qualifications, the 4th Respondent, Abdirahman Makahil Rashid, was appointed to the position on June 26, 2020, although he was only 28 years old, did not reside in Gurufa, and had a KCSE grade of D plus. The petitioners contended that his appointment violated their constitutional rights and the recruitment process lacked fairness and transparency.

4. Procedural History:
The petitioners filed a Notice of Motion Application on July 2, 2020, seeking conservatory orders to prevent the 4th Respondent from assuming office until the matter was resolved. The Respondents opposed the application, arguing that the recruitment adhered to legal standards and cited a similar case pending in the Chief Magistrate Court. Both parties submitted their arguments and evidence, leading to the High Court's determination of jurisdiction as the first issue to be addressed.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Articles 162(2)(a) and 165 of the Constitution, which grant jurisdiction to the Employment and Labour Relations Court for disputes related to employment. It also referenced the Public Service Commission Human Resource Policies and Procedures and relevant circulars regarding recruitment standards.
- Case Law: The court cited previous rulings, including *Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lilian S” vs. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited* and *Daniel N. Mugendi vs. Kenyatta University*, which emphasize the importance of jurisdiction. The court also referenced *Abdikadir Suleiman vs. County Government of Isiolo* concerning the scope of employment disputes.
- Application: The court applied the established rules and case law to determine that the issues raised by the petitioners fell within the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court. It concluded that the High Court lacked jurisdiction over employment-related matters and could not proceed with the case.

6. Conclusion:
The High Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition and application, resulting in the striking out of the case with no orders as to costs. The interim orders preventing the 4th Respondent from assuming office were also discharged.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions recorded in this case, as the ruling was made by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The case underscores the importance of jurisdiction in legal proceedings, particularly in employment matters in Kenya. The High Court's decision to strike out the petition reinforces the authority of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to handle disputes arising from employment and recruitment processes, thereby ensuring that such matters are addressed within the appropriate judicial framework. The outcome highlights the need for adherence to qualification criteria in public service appointments and the significance of transparency in recruitment processes.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Masud-Farah-Bille--another-v-Cabinet-Secretary-Ministry-of-Interior-and-Coordination-of-National-Government--4-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2694_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries