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

Ndueyira v Inspector General of Police & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E038 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 2092 (KLR) (18 May 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEELRC 2092 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
2092
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 2092 (KLR)
Decided
18 May 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment and Labour Relations AppealPosturePetition for preliminary objection
Holding

The court held that the statutes cannot bar adjudication on bill of rights and fundamental freedoms, and that the petitioner's petition raises constitutional issues that can be properly adjudicated under a constitutional litigation.

Facts

Petitioner Calistus Wanjala Ndueyira filed a petition against the Inspector General of Police and other respondents alleging violations of constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms.

Issues

  1. Whether statutes can bar adjudication on bill of rights and fundamental freedoms.
  2. Whether the petitioner's petition raises constitutional issues that can be properly adjudicated under a constitutional litigation.

Reasoning

The court noted that the Constitution provides for the right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated, or infringed or is threatened. The court also referred to the Chief Justice's rules, which do not provide for limitation of time for institution of proceedings contemplated under articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution.

Outcome

The preliminary objection was dismissed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Public Limitations Act
  • Limitation of Actions Act
  • Employment Act
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case