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. 136 of 2016· [2020] KEELRC 1110 (KLR)

County Secretary of Uasin Gishu & others v Salaries & Remuneration Commission; Council of Governors (Interested Party) [2020] KEELRC 1110 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 May 2020
ANAbuodha Jorum Nelson
4,479 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's court confirmed that the Salaries and Remuneration Commission has the final say on public officers' pay, and vague constitutional claims will fail.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimants, County Secretaries led by the County Secretary of Uasin Gishu, petitioned the Employment and Labour Relations Court alleging that the Salaries and Remuneration Commission violated their constitutional rights by issuing circulars that set their remuneration below the package recommended by the Transition Authority and purportedly re-designated them from Job Group T to Job Group S. They sought declarations of violation of fair trial, non-discrimination, fair labour relations and fair administrative action rights, compensation of Kshs 1 million each, and a permanent injunction restraining release of the final job evaluation results. The respondent, through the affidavit of Anne Gitau, maintained that its mandate under Article 230 of the Constitution and the SRC Act is to set and review remuneration and advise on public officers' benefits; that it never designated the County Secretaries to any job group; and that the reference to Job Group S was only for purposes of computing specified allowances. The job evaluation exercise, conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers across all 47 counties, was said to have been participatory and inclusive. The court held that Articles 25 and 50 concern due process in trials or adjudication and do not apply to internal consultative and administrative processes; that no discrimination was demonstrated and no evidence of assignment to Job Group T was produced; and that matters of salaries and remuneration fall within the SRC's exclusive mandate, its advice being binding. The petition was found devoid of any constitutional issue and was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether Articles 25 and 50 were violated

Holding

Not applicable; they concern due process in trials or adjudication, not policy formulation processes

Reasoning

The court held Articles 25(c) and 50 concern due process when a citizen undergoes trial or adjudication before a court or tribunal. The dispute before the court concerned remuneration and benefits, an internal administrative and consultative process, and could not qualify as an Article 25 or 50 dispute.

p. 6
02

Whether the petitioners were discriminated against under Article 27

Holding

No discrimination demonstrated; no evidence of assignment to Job Group T

Reasoning

The court found the petitioners did not sufficiently demonstrate how the SRC's setting of salaries under its constitutional mandate discriminated against them. Their claimed assignment to Job Group T was a mere reference point for harmonization and payment of allowances, and did not constitute conferment of that job group.

p. 6
03

Whether the SRC ignored the Transition Authority's advice unlawfully

Holding

No; remuneration matters fall within the SRC's exclusive mandate and its advice is binding

Reasoning

The court held both the TA and SRC were created to perform distinct functions, with salaries and remuneration matters being within the SRC's exclusive mandate. Its advice binds national and county governments, so the petitioners' contention that the SRC wrongfully ignored TA advice was erroneous.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Matters concerning salaries, remuneration and benefits of state and public officers in National and County Governments fall within the exclusive mandate of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission, whose advice is binding.
  • To qualify as a constitutional dispute, a petitioner must identify the article of the Constitution violated and demonstrate in what way it was violated.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is dismissed with costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution (Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "County Secretary of Uasin Gishu & others v Salaries & Remuneration Commission; Council of Governors (Interested Party) [2020] KEELRC 1110 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Petition No. 136 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1110/eng@2020-05-14

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