Former Employees Lodge Petition with JSC Seeking Removal of ELRC Judge Christine Noontatua Baari Over Alleged Bias and Incompetence in Redundancy Ruling

Nairobi, November 19, 2025 – A group of 16 former employees of Jumuia Hospitals Limited, operated under the National Council of Churches of Kenya (NCCK), has filed a formal petition with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) demanding the removal of Hon. Lady Justice Christine Noontatua Baari from the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC).

The petition, dated November 17, 2025, and stamped as received by the JSC on November 18, 2025, accuses Justice Baari of incompetence, bias, gross misconduct, and serious violations of the Constitution in her handling of a high-profile redundancy case. The petitioners, led by Dr. Margaret Migiro and represented by Midenga & Company Advocates, argue that the judge’s conduct undermines public confidence in the judiciary and contravenes Chapter Six of the Constitution on leadership and integrity.

At the heart of the complaint is ELRC Cause No. E175 of 2021: Dr. Margaret Migiro Mbaabu & 15 Others v Registered Trustees of the National Council of Churches of Kenya & Jumuia Hospitals Limited. The claimants, declared redundant in 2020 amid financial constraints at Jumuia Hospitals, challenged the termination as unfair and unlawful. They explicitly sought compensation for unlawful and unfair declaration of redundancy in their 2021 Memorandum of Claim.

However, in a judgment delivered on October 30, 2025, Justice Baari ruled that while the redundancy process lacked proper justification and procedural fairness under Section 40 of the Employment Act, the claimants were bound by their pleadings and could not be awarded damages or compensation because they had not specifically prayed for it in the main suit. The judge noted in paragraph 65: “It is also safe to mention that though the Claimants asked the court to declare their termination by redundancy unfair, they did not proceed to seek damages/compensation for the unfair termination… this court will be in error to award that which was not prayed for.”

The petitioners describe this finding as “extremely baffling and appalling,” insisting that their prayer for compensation was unambiguous and that the judge deliberately ignored it to produce a “cosmetic” outcome that shielded the NCCK from accountability. They further allege that Justice Baari overlooked other unaddressed prayers, such as withheld salaries and issuance of certificates of service, and failed to apply Section 49 of the Employment Act, which mandates compensation for wrongful or unfair termination.

Additional grounds include claims that the judge showed bias by refusing to allow the claimants’ counsel to address the court immediately after judgment delivery, instead suggesting an appeal—a move the petitioners say reeks of compromise and an attempt to cover up flaws in the ruling. They contend that her actions eroded judicial independence, contravened Article 73(2) on objectivity and impartiality, and violated the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.

The petitioners, who include medical professionals and support staff, say the ruling has left them victims of injustice, denied meaningful redress despite the court’s acknowledgment of procedural lapses by their former employer. One petitioner was reportedly awarded only KSh 10,000, described as derisory.

Under Article 168 of the Constitution, the JSC must now review whether the petition discloses sufficient grounds for removal—such as incompetence, bias, gross misconduct, or constitutional violations—before potentially forwarding it to the President for the formation of a tribunal.

Justice Baari, appointed to the ELRC in 2021 and stationed in Nairobi (with prior postings including Kisumu), has not responded publicly to the allegations. The JSC, which treats such petitions confidentially during initial review, has not issued a statement on the matter.

This petition adds to a growing list of judicial accountability cases in Kenya, highlighting tensions between litigants’ expectations and strict adherence to pleadings in employment disputes. Legal experts note that while courts are bound by prayers sought, critics argue such rigid interpretations can deny substantive justice in labour matters.