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

Johnson Cheprot Takur Suing on Behalf of the Ogiek/Ndorobo Council of Elders v County Government of Bungoma & 3 others [2021] KEHC 4424 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 4424 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
4424
Citation
[2021] KEHC 4424 (KLR)
Decided
30 July 2021
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeConstitutional PetitionPostureRespondents challenged jurisdiction and discrimination in appointments.CoramOthers Nairobi
Holding

The court finds the petition properly instituted and the claim based on a constitutional matter under Article 27 of the Constitution.

Facts

The petitioner, Johnson Cheprot Takur, on behalf of the Ogiek Community, sought a declaration that nominees for Chief Officers, Advisors, Public Service Board, and Municipal Boards positions were unconstitutional due to lack of Ogiek representation and non-compliance with gender and disability considerations.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to determine the matter.
  2. Whether the respondents discriminated against the petitioners in their appointment of officers within the County Government of Bungoma.

Reasoning

The court upholds the petitioners' claim as a constitutional matter under Article 27, which guarantees equality and protection from discrimination.

Outcome

The court upholds the petitioners' claim and finds the respondents discriminated against them.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • County Governments Act
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010
Cases cited (2)
  • Phoenix of E.A. Assurance Company Limited v S. M. Thiga t/a Newspaper Service (2019) eKLR
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd. (1989) KLR 1
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