SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Kulundu v Chief Executive Officer, Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 9 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E170 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1808 (KLR) (27 July 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEELRC 1808 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1808
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 1808 (KLR)
Decided
27 July 2023
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeEmployment and Labour Relations PetitionPostureApplication to strike out and/or expunge Respondents from the court recordCoramNDOLO
The 4th to 10th Respondents are no longer members of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and should be struck out of the suit.

Facts

The Petitioner, Ruth Khatievi Kulundu, filed an interdiction against the Chief Executive Officer of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and nine other Respondents. The Respondents filed an application seeking to strike out and expunge the 4th to 10th Respondents from the court record.

Issues

  • Whether the Petitioner has a valid cause of action against the 4th to 10th Respondents
  • Whether the 4th to 10th Respondents are still members of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission

Reasoning

The Tribunal found that the 7th, 8th, and 9th Respondents were removed from office due to gross misconduct, and the 10th Respondent was recommended for removal. The Respondents' tenures expired, and they were removed from office.

Outcome

The application to strike out and expunge the 4th to 10th Respondents from the court record was granted.

Orders

  • The 4th to 10th Respondents were struck out of the suit

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act, 2007
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case