Nairobi City County Government v Kenya County Government Workers Union; Salaries and Remuneration Commission(Interested Party/Applicant) [2019] KEELRC 1522 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court cancelled a Nairobi County pay deal because the county skipped mandatory Salaries and Remuneration Commission clearance before signing it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the SRC was rightfully enjoined as an Interested Party
The joinder was proper as the SRC has a constitutional and statutory mandate over public sector remuneration and sufficient interest in the registration of the CBA.
Applying the Muruatetu principles, the court found the SRC's personal interest identifiable and proximate: it alleged the CBA was registered with its constitutional mandate disregarded. Section 15(6) of the ELRC Act requires reference to SRC guidelines. The SRC's participation was relevant to protect the public interest in public-sector remuneration matters.
Whether the CBA registration breached Article 230(4), the SRC Act and SRC Regulations
Yes - the negotiation and registration contravened Article 230(4), Section 11 of the SRC Act, Section 15(6) of the ELRC Act and Regulation 18 of the SRC Regulations.
The Employer sought a technical adviser only after the CBA had been negotiated and signed, failed to submit the requested information despite reminders, and never confirmed fiscal sustainability with the Commission. Both the Employer and Union knew SRC clearance was required before registration. The registration was therefore tainted with illegality.
Whether the CBA could be set aside despite no proof of collusion
Yes - illegality sufficed; collusion was not established but illegality was, warranting setting aside the registration.
A CBA is a binding contract set aside on contract principles including fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, collusion or illegality. Though collusion was not proved on the facts, the negotiation and registration were contrary to constitutional and statutory provisions, establishing illegality. The application having been filed in the suit where the CBA was registered was proper.
Whether the application was defective for citing wrong provisions and for not being filed in Cause 211 of 2018
No - wrong invocation of provisions without bad faith or prejudice does not defeat the application, and the SRC rightly filed in the suit where the CBA was registered.
The application was grounded on Rule 33 but cited several provisions; the Employer and Union showed no prejudice. Article 159(2)(d) does not permit disregard of procedure but the mis-citation was not intended to mislead. The SRC was not a party to Cause 211 of 2018 and could not be faulted for not filing there; its proper forum was the suit in which registration occurred.
Legal principles established
#- Public sector employers must seek the advice of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission before commencing collective bargaining and confirm fiscal sustainability with the Commission before signing a CBA; failure to do so taints the CBA with illegality.
- The advice of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission on public sector remuneration is binding and cannot be ignored with impunity.
- Invoking the wrong provision of law does not doom an otherwise meritorious application where done in good faith and without prejudice to the other side.
- A CBA is a binding contract and may be set aside on the principles applicable to setting aside contracts, including illegality.
Court orders
#- 1.The registration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement No. RCA 182 of 2018 is set aside.
- 2.Each party shall bear its costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 50, 159(2)(d) and 230 of the Constitution; Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Sections 8, 54, 57, 59 and 60(4) of the Labour Relations Act; Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (8)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kenya Engineering Workers Union v M/S Kenya Marine Contractors (EPZ) Limited (Cause E047 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2990 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2990 (KLR)30 Oct 2025
- Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational, Institution Hospitals and Allied Workers v Nakuru War Memorial Hospital (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 470 of 2016) [2023] KEELRC 3482 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 3482 (KLR)11 Dec 2023
- University Academic Staff Union (UASU) v Garissa University; Ministry of Labour and Social Protection & another (Interested Parties) (Miscellaneous Case E088 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2778 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 2778 (KLR)8 Nov 2023applied
- Kenya Game Conservancy, Tour & Safari Workers Union v Pollmans Tours and Safaris Ltd; Transport Workers Union Kenya (Objector) (CBA E106 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2570 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 2570 (KLR)23 Oct 2023applied
- Kenya Aviation Workers Union v Kenya Airports Authority & another [2021] KEELRC 1376 (KLR)[2021] KEELRC 1376 (KLR)2 Jun 2021
- Kenya Aviation Workers Union v Kenya Airports Authority & another [2021] KEELRC 1376 (KLR)[2021] KEELRC 1376 (KLR)2 Jun 2021
- Kenya Union of Commercial Foods and Allied Workers v National Social Security Fund; Salaries and Remuneration Commission (Objector) [2021] KEELRC 1989 (KLR)[2021] KEELRC 1989 (KLR)5 Mar 2021
- Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Wellsfargo Limited [2020] KEELRC 17 (KLR)[2020] KEELRC 17 (KLR)16 Dec 2020applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nairobi City County Government v Kenya County Government Workers Union; Salaries and Remuneration Commission(Interested Party/Applicant) [2019] KEELRC 1522 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause 216 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1522/eng@2019-05-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.