Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition No. 3 of 2015· [2016] KEELRC 853 (KLR)

Kenya County Government Workers Union v Kisumu County Public Service Board & another [2016] KEELRC 853 (KLR)

Employment & Labour Relations Court
16 June 2016
MOMaureen Onyango
2,332 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court dismissed a union petition seeking reinstatement of 40 former council workers because it failed to clearly identify which rights were violated and by whom.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Kenya County Government Workers Union petitioned the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu on behalf of 40 interested parties, all former employees of the defunct Municipal Council of Kisumu, alleging that their terminations contravened Articles 22, 47, 232 and 236 of the Constitution, provisions of the County Government Act and the Employment Act. The petitioner sought declarations that the actions of the Respondents and their predecessor were discriminatory, constituted unfair labour practices and unfair administrative action, and orders compelling reinstatement and enforcement of the 'Okolla Committee' resolutions. The Respondents, through the replying affidavit of John Wamalwa Munoko, maintained that the dismissals were effected in December 2012 by the Public Service Commission following investigations which revealed that the interested parties had forged academic certificates, and that the Respondents came into existence after the 2013 General Elections and were wrongly sued. Maureen Onyango J applied the Anarita Karimi Njeru principle that a petitioner must set out with particularity the specific right violated and how. She found the petition lacked particulars of the dismissals and relied on only four of forty employment records and committee minutes. The court could not discern any procedural non-compliance or rights violation, nor establish the Disciplinary Committee's mandate or the binding nature of its recommendations, nor the Respondents' liability for pre-2013 dismissals. The petition was dismissed with no orders for costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petitioner established infringement of the interested parties' constitutional rights

Holding

The petition failed to plead with particularity how the rights were violated; it did not state how the interested parties were dismissed or what transpired before dismissal

Reasoning

Applying the Anarita Karimi Njeru principle, the court found the petition set out only names, dismissal letters, employment records of 4 of 40 interested parties, and minutes of a Disciplinary Committee. Nothing was stated about the committee's mandate, who set it up, or what action was taken on its recommendations, so no infringement could be discerned.

p. 5
02

Whether the Respondents, established after the dismissals, could be liable

Holding

No effort was made to demonstrate how the Respondents became liable for dismissals effected in December 2012 before their establishment

Reasoning

The interested parties were apparently dismissed in December 2012 by or pursuant to Public Service Commission investigations, before the Respondents came into existence after the 2013 General Elections. The petitioner made no effort to demonstrate how the Respondents inherited liability for those dismissals.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A petitioner alleging infringement of constitutional rights must set out with particularity the specific right violated and how it was violated (Anarita Karimi Njeru principle)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition was dismissed
  2. 2.No orders for costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 22
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 47
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 176
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 232(1) and (3)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 235(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 236(b)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 258
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 262
  • County Government Actsections 57, 59, 62, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74, 75 and 76
  • Labour Relations Act
  • Employment Act
  • Public Service (Local Authority Officers) Regulations

Cases cited (5)

  • John Main Temoi & Another v Governor of Bungoma County & 17 others
    [2014]eKLR
  • Timothy Omollo and 79 Others v Kakamega County Government & Another
    [2013]eKLR
  • Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (No.1)
    [1979] 1 KLR 154
  • Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance
    [2013]eKLR
  • Daniel Chacha Muriri v Attorney General
    [2012]eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 22, 47, 232 and 236 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (enforcement of fundamental rights; employment and labour relations jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya County Government Workers Union v Kisumu County Public Service Board & another [2016] KEELRC 853 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Petition No. 3 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/853/eng@2016-06-16

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