Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (application dated 3.11.2014)· [2014] KEELRC 1460 (KLR)

Abigael Nyandoya & 4 others v Clerk County Assembly Vihiga & another [2014] KEELRC 1460 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
3 December 2014
815 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court ordered Vihiga County Assembly to pay its staff unpaid salaries, confirming that county assembly workers answer to the Service Board, not the clerk.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a notice of motion dated 3 November 2014 brought by employees of the County Assembly of Vihiga Service under Rule 16(1) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010, Articles 28 and 41(1) of the Constitution and section 18(2) of the Employment Act, seeking orders that pending determination of the main suit the respondents pay their salaries and benefits arrears. The applicants, employed from 1 April 2014, had never been paid despite executed employment contracts. The 1st respondent, through the clerk Josephat Musambayi, opposed the application, arguing the prayers duplicated the main suit, that the employment letters were signed by the Board chairperson rather than the clerk as authorized officer under section 13(4) of the County Government Act, and that similar proceedings existed before the High Court in Kakamega. The 2nd respondent, through Speaker Daniel Chitwah, supported the application, a Board resolution having confirmed the applicants as bona fide employees. Justice Hellen S. Wasilwa held that the clerk and assembly staff are employees of the County Assembly Service Board acting under its direction and control, that the Board's minutes of 25 August 2014 resolved the applicants be paid, and that the clerk's failure to implement that resolution was improper. The court found the applicants entitled to salary arrears, non-payment infringing their Article 41 right to fair labour practices, and that interim orders would not finalize the main cause. The court ordered the respondents to pay the applicants' salary and benefits arrears pending determination of the main suit, with costs to the 1st respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants, whose employment letters were signed by the Speaker and Chairman of the County Assembly Service Board rather than the clerk, were bona fide employees entitled to salary arrears

Holding

The applicants are bona fide employees entitled to payment of salary arrears; the Board itself resolved that they be paid

Reasoning

The applicants exhibited appointment letters signed by the Speaker and Chairman of the Vihiga County Assembly Service Board. On the court record were Board minutes of 25.8.2014 resolving that the applicants be paid their salaries. The clerk, the authorized officer under section 13(4) of the County Government Act, declined to implement this resolution, even earning a show cause letter. The court held the clerk and staff are employees of the Board acting under its direction and control, so the resolution bound the clerk.

p. 2
02

Whether the interlocutory orders sought would compromise or finalize the main suit

Holding

They would not, as the main cause seeks orders going beyond those sought in the application

Reasoning

The 1st respondent argued that granting the prayers would compromise the main suit since similar relief was sought there. The court found that the main cause seeks broader orders than the application, so payment of salary arrears pending determination would not finalize the main cause. Interim payment was therefore appropriate without predjudicing the substantive suit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The clerk and staff of a county assembly are employees of the County Assembly Service Board, acting under its direction and control
  • Failure to pay employees their salaries infringes the right to fair labour practices under Article 41 of the Constitution

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Pending the determination of the main suit, the respondents to forthwith pay the applicants their salaries and benefits arrears
  2. 2.The 1st respondent to pay costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010Rule 16(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Articles 28, 41(1)
  • Employment Act 2010Section 18(2)(c)
  • County Government Act 2012Sections 13(4), 13(5)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 16(1) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010; Articles 28 & 41(1) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Section 18(2) of the Employment Act 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Abigael Nyandoya & 4 others v Clerk County Assembly Vihiga & another [2014] KEELRC 1460 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 3.11.2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/1460/eng@2014-12-03

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.