Mwirabua & another v Governor of Meru County & another (Civil Appeal 305 of 2019) [2026] KECA 354 (KLR)
The bottom line
#County government employees in Kenya must first appeal to the Public Service Commission under section 77 before suing in court over their employment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appellants’ claims were premature for failure to comply with section 77 of the County Governments Act
- 2.Whether the appellants’ termination was unlawful and what remedies, if any, they are entitled to
Key legal issues
#Whether section 77 of the County Governments Act applied to the appellants' claims for breach of contract and unfair termination
Yes. The appellants' claims were anchored on their appointment as Chief Officers, the terms of their service and their alleged removal from office, all matters expressly covered by section 77; they were therefore required to appeal to the Public Service Commission before moving the court.
The court construed section 77 and found it establishes a comprehensive appellate mechanism covering appointment, remuneration, terms and conditions of service, disciplinary control, removal from service and terminal benefits. Because the appellants' pleaded reliefs revolved around appointment, terms of service and removal, the claims fell squarely within the section. The exhaustion doctrine required them to pursue the Commission first, and no exceptional circumstances excused non-compliance. The ELRC therefore did not err in holding it lacked jurisdiction.
Whether the ELRC erred in dismissing the claims as premature
No. The ELRC correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction because the statutory appellate procedure under section 77 had not been exhausted and no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated.
Relying on the exhaustion doctrine as pronounced in Secretary, County Public Service Board v Hulbhai Gedi Abdille and Speaker of National Assembly v James Njenga Karume, the court held that where there exists a sufficient and adequate alternative forum, a party must pursue it before invoking the court process. In the absence of demonstrated exceptional circumstances, the ELRC did not err in declining jurisdiction for prematurity.
Whether the appellants' termination was unlawful and what remedies were due
The court did not reach the merits; because the claims were premature, no finding on the lawfulness of termination or remedies was made.
The second issue framed by the court (lawfulness of termination and remedies) was only conditionally before the court. Having upheld the prematurity finding on the first issue, the court dismissed the appeal without making any determination on the contractual term, constructive termination, or the reliefs claimed.
Legal principles established
#- Where a statute provides a clear and efficacious dispute resolution mechanism, that mechanism must be exhausted before recourse is had to the courts, absent exceptional circumstances
- Section 77 of the County Governments Act establishes a comprehensive appellate mechanism to the Public Service Commission covering appointment, terms and conditions of service, disciplinary control, removal from service and terminal benefits of county public officers
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Meru
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal Rules (rule 31(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 invoked); appeal from the ELRC
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the ELRC judgment and grant of the appellants' claims (declarations, salary and terminal benefits for the full five-year term, punitive and exemplary damages, certificates of service)
The claims fell within the appellate jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission under section 77 of the County Governments Act and had to be exhausted first; no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Time and again, it has been said that where there exists other suficient and adequate avenue or forum to resolve a dispute, a party ought to pursue that avenue or forum and not invoke the court process if the dispute could very well and efiectively be dealt with in that other forum
The appellants’ claims before the ELRC were anchored on their appointment as Chief Oficers, the terms of their service, and their alleged removal from ofice. These matters fall squarely within the ambit of section 77 of the Act.
In the absence of any demonstrated exceptional circumstances, we are satisfied that the ELRC did not err in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellants’ claims for failure to exhaust the statutory appellate procedure under section 77 of the Act.
Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss it with costs to the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The case name is printed inconsistently within the judgment: it appears as 'The Secretary, County Public Service Board & Another v Hulbhai Gedi Abdille [2017] eKLR' in the submissions section but as 'Secretary, County Public Service Board & another v Hulbhai Gedi Abdille [2017] KECA 643 KLR' in the determination, and the citation paragraph contains a grammatical irregularity
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwirabua & another v Governor of Meru County & another (Civil Appeal 305 of 2019) [2026] KECA 354 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/354/eng@2026-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.