Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 42 of 2018· [2019] KEELRC 2199 (KLR)

Alexander Kimutai Rotich v Governor, County Government of Kericho & another [2019] KEELRC 2199 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
1 February 2019
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
2,431 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled county Chief Officers hold flexible contracts of up to five years maximum, not guaranteed five-year jobs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, appointed on 16th/18th April 2015 as Chief Officer, Department of Trade, Industrialization, Co-operative Management, Tourism and Wildlife of Kericho County Government, received on 19th December 2017 a letter informing him that his contract would expire on 21st December 2017. He sued the Governor and the Chairman of the Kericho County Public Service Board, contending that under the County Public Service Human Resource Manual he was entitled to a full five-year medium term appointment ending in March 2020, that the Governor rather than the Board could not terminate his contract, and seeking declarations that the expiry notice and any fresh recruitment were unlawful, reinstatement, unpaid salaries from January 2018 and costs. The respondents admitted the employment but maintained it was medium term under Sections B.2(1) and B.15 of the Resource Manual, that five years was a maximum and not a mandatory term, that proper notice of expiry was given on 17th December 2017, and that the claim was an afterthought since the claimant had applied afresh for the re-advertised posts and been rejected on merit. The court framed four issues. It held that the contract was a flexible medium term appointment of up to five years, not a guaranteed five-year term; that waiver, estoppel and laches principles (drawing on Benjoh Amalgamated and Rajnikanthkhetshi Shah, cited by the respondents) further defeated the claim; and that the recruitment issue was moot. The claim was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant's contract was for a fixed 5-year term

Holding

The contract was a medium term appointment whose duration was variable up to a maximum of five years; the claimant was not entitled to the full five years

Reasoning

The court examined Sections B.2(1), B.10(1), B.11 and B.15(1)-(3) of the County Public Service Board Resource Manual of May, 2013. Section B.2(1) categorized medium term appointments as 1–5 year renewable contracts, and B.15(3) set five years only as a maximum, renewable once. The claimant served 2 years and 9 months and was given notice of expiry on 17th December 2017, so the 5-year term claim failed.

p. 4
02

Whether the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and laches defeated the claim

Holding

The claimant was estopped from asserting a five-year entitlement having applied afresh for the re-advertised Chief Officer posts

Reasoning

The respondents relied on Benjoh Amalgamated (laches) and Rajnikanthkhetshi Shah (waiver and acquiescence). The claimant, knowing his contract was to expire, applied for the 13 re-advertised Chief Officer posts in August/September 2017 and was rejected on merit. His conduct was inconsistent with the asserted right, and the suit was characterized as an afterthought.

p. 4
03

Whether the recruitment of another Chief Officer contravened the claimant's statutory and constitutional rights

Holding

Not applicable once the contract was found not to be a fixed five-year term

Reasoning

The court held that this issue fell away as a consequence of the finding on the first issue, since there was no fixed term contract whose early recruitment could breach.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Medium term appointment under the County Public Service Board Resource Manual permits a contract of any period up to a maximum of five years, not a guaranteed five-year term
  • A party who waives or acquiesces in respect of his rights is estopped from later asserting them

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • County Governments ActSection 45
  • County Public Service Board Resource ManualSections B.2(1), B.10(1), B.11(1), B.15(1), B.15(2), B.15(3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Benjoh Amalgamated Limited & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Rajnikanthkhetshi Shah v Habib Bank A.G. Zurich
    [2016] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the Memorandum of Claim (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act); no specific provision invoked

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

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, "Alexander Kimutai Rotich v Governor, County Government of Kericho & another [2019] KEELRC 2199 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No. 42 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2199/eng@2019-02-01

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