Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedPetition (Notice of Motion dated 17/10/2017)· [2018] KEELRC 1558 (KLR)

Kenya County Government Workers Union & 12 others v County Secretary, County Government of Nairobi & 3 others [2018] KEELRC 1558 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
6 June 2018
HWHellen Wasilwa
2,762 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Nairobi court stopped county workers' discipline because the wrong body started it, but the County Public Service Board may restart it properly.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a notice of motion dated 17 October 2017 filed by the Kenya County Government Workers Union and the 2nd to 13th Petitioners, employees of the 4th Respondent deployed in the legal department of the 3rd Respondent (Nairobi City County), seeking urgent conservatory orders pending determination of their Petition. They challenged letters of 26 September 2017 sending them on indefinite compulsory leave without reasons or a hearing, their subsequent barring from offices, and allegedly defamatory press statements by the 2nd Respondent, alleging violations of Articles 10, 27, 28, 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution and breaches of Sections 58 and 59 of the County Government Act and the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Respondents opposed, describing the application as premature and abusive, and alleging a cartel involved in illegal land dealings and fraudulent rate recoveries. Interim orders had been issued on 17 October 2017 by Mbaru J. Wasilwa J held that while courts should not normally interfere with internal disciplinary processes, the process here was flawed because it was initiated by an entity not clothed with disciplinary powers - the letters were signed by one who was not the County Public Service Board, which under Sections 58 and 59 of the County Government Act alone exercises disciplinary control over county public officers. The Court halted the flawed disciplinary process pending the Petition, left the 4th Respondent free to initiate a proper process, and awarded costs in the cause. The broad conservatory relief sought was not granted in its entirety.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Court should halt the disciplinary process initiated against the applicants

Holding

The Court halted the ongoing disciplinary process because it was initiated by an entity without power to do so, being signed by one who is not the County Public Service Board

Reasoning

Section 58 of the County Government Act establishes the County Public Service Board and Section 59 vests in it the function of exercising disciplinary control over and removing persons holding county public offices. The letters sending the applicants on compulsory leave were signed by Leboo, who is not the Public Service County Board and did not explain his relationship to the Board. The 4th Respondent did not state that it was conducting the investigations. The process was therefore initiated by an entity not clothed with powers to carry it out, constituting an illegality which the Court would not perpetuate.

p. 5
02

The extent of judicial interference with internal disciplinary processes

Holding

The Court will not normally interfere with an employer's internal disciplinary process save where the process is flawed, and then only to put it on course

Reasoning

Relying on authority cited in the judgment, the Court held that the employer's management prerogative in administering staff should not be unduly stifled by injunctive measures, and courts should be slow to interfere unless the employer's action materially derogates from the disciplinary process and the law. Here the flaw lay in the identity of the body initiating the process, warranting limited intervention only.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A county disciplinary process must be initiated by the County Public Service Board, which alone has disciplinary control over county public officers; a process initiated by another entity is flawed
  • Courts will not normally interfere with internal disciplinary processes between employer and employee unless the process is flawed, and any interference is limited to putting the process on course

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the disciplinary process against the Applicants in as much as it is not initiated by the Public Service County Board is flawed and is hereby halted pending hearing and determination of this Petition
  2. 2.The 4th Respondent is free to initiate proper disciplinary process based on law and proper procedures against the Applicants if they so wish
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Articles 10, 27, 28, 41, 47, 48, 50, 176, 179, 232, 235, 236
  • County Government ActSections 58, 59, 79
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016Rules 17(1)(4)(5), 28
  • Constitution of Kenya (Supervisory Jurisdiction and Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual) High Court Practice and Procedure Rules 2013Rules 12, 13, 20, 21, 33
  • Employment Act
  • Industrial Court Act

Cases cited (3)

  • Kenya Airways Limited vs. Aviation and Allied Workers Union and 3 others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Prof Gitile Naituli vs University Council, Multimedia University of Kenya
    Case No. 1200/2012
  • Nixon Bugo vs the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa
    Cause 2244/2014
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 10, 27, 28, 41, 47, 50, 176, 179, 232, 235 and 236 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016 Rules 17(1)(4)(5) and 28

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya County Government Workers Union & 12 others v County Secretary, County Government of Nairobi & 3 others [2018] KEELRC 1558 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Petition (Notice of Motion dated 17/10/2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1558/eng@2018-06-06

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