Former Homa Bay Deputy Governor Joseph Oyugi Magwanga has lost his bid in court to challenge his alleged exclusion from county government operations and unfair treatment.
This follows the Employment and Labour Relations Court's decision to strike out his petition, citing procedural lapses and his subsequent resignation.
In the petition lodged in January 2026, Mr Magwanga claimed he was effectively sidelined, locked out of his office, denied access to official resources, and excluded from county government functions, which he argued amounted to constructive dismissal.
However, the court sitting at Kisumu has ruled that he moved to court prematurely and that he rendered his case moot after resigning from office.
Justice Nzioki wa Makau held that although the court had jurisdiction to determine the issues, Mr Magwanga failed to exhaust available dispute resolution mechanisms before filing the case.
“The petitioner had not exhausted the dispute resolution mechanisms before moving the court,” the judge said. “Premature invocation of the jurisdiction of the court is tantamount to abuse of process.”
Homa Bay Governor Gladys Wanga and her deputy Oyugi Magwanga address journalists at the county headquarters on September 12, 2022.
Photo credit: George Odiwuor | Nation Media Group
Mr Magwanga had sued Homa Bay Governor Gladys Wanga and the county government, alleging that he had been unlawfully sidelined from office.
He claimed he was locked out of his office, denied official vehicles and excluded from county operations, which he termed a violation of constitutional and labour rights.
He argued that the actions amounted to constructive dismissal and breached provisions on fair administrative action, fair labour practices and leadership integrity.
Mr Magwanga alleged a breach of constitutional and legal violations arising from what he termed as unfair treatment by the respondents.
Particularly, he contended that their actions of locking him out of his office, rendering his office inoperable by refusing to engage him, and the withdrawal of his official motor vehicles breached the Constitution.
He wanted the court to compel the county government to restore his access to office, reinstate his official privileges, and stop what he described as unlawful exclusion from performing his duties.
But the respondents opposed the case through a preliminary objection, arguing that the petition was defective, vague and improperly before the court.
They maintained that the dispute was administrative and did not meet the threshold of a constitutional petition.
They further argued that Mr Magwanga had bypassed internal mechanisms, including avenues within the county public service framework and the Public Service Commission, before seeking judicial intervention.
The court agreed that such mechanisms ought to have been pursued first, stressing that where a clear procedure exists, it must be followed before approaching the court.
“It is imperative that where dispute resolution mechanisms exist outside courts, the same should be exhausted before the jurisdiction of the courts is invoked,” it ruled.
The court, however, rejected the respondents’ argument that the case should be dismissed for lack of statutory notice to the government. He held that such a requirement limits access to justice and is not fatal to a suit.
“The failure to issue a notice in this case is not fatal, in my view, and the suit could be progressed,” said Justice Makau.
Despite that finding, the court concluded that the petition could not proceed because it had also been overtaken by events.
Joseph Oyugi Magwanga.
Photo credit: George Odiwuor | Nation Media Group
Mr Magwanga resigned from office on February 26, 2026, to pursue political ambitions and Governor Wanga nominated Roads and Public Works executive Danish Onyango to replace him.
The court found that the resignation removed any practical basis for the orders sought, including reinstatement to office and restoration of official privileges.
“When a matter is overtaken by events, it becomes moot,” the court said. “The reliefs sought are now impractical and merely academic since he has since resigned his position.”
It questioned the basis of the claims after the resignation, noting that the petitioner could no longer perform the functions of the office even if the court granted the orders.
“The actions of the Petitioner have rendered the Petition moot and of no effect,” it held.
Magwanga’s petition had sought court orders compelling the county to restore his access to office and facilities, arguing that his exclusion undermined the constitutional structure of county governance.
However, the court declined to interrogate the substance of those claims, finding that the case was not properly before it and had lost practical relevance.
The ruling left unresolved the underlying dispute over the treatment of the deputy governor but strengthened the legal threshold for such claims to be heard.
