Kenya County Government Workers Union v Nairobi City County Government & another [2022] KEELRC 922 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A union's constitutional petition failed because it lacked evidence and used the wrong procedure — choose your forum carefully in Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the advertisement of vacancies violated Article 27 (non-discrimination)
No discrimination established; the advertisement was open to all qualified Kenyans and the Petitioner identified no discriminatory ground
The court applied the three-stage enquiry from Mohammed Abduba Dida. The advertisement on its face was directed to all Kenyans meeting the requirements, with no preference or exclusion. The Petitioner did not identify the specific grounds of discrimination nor any requirement barring its members from applying; the only differentiation was qualifications. The allegation that inviting outside applicants was discriminatory was speculative and unproved.
Whether the Respondents violated Article 41 (fair labour practices)
No violation proved; allegations of redundancy and breach of legitimate expectation were speculative and contested issues of fact
Fair labour practices must be construed in light of the Employment Act. The claim of imminent redundancy lacked concrete facts and a staff audit dispute was contested; such factual issues could only be resolved on oral evidence. The Petitioner failed to prove the alleged infringement, and its assertions were speculative.
Whether the advertisement was unfair administrative action under Article 47
The advertisement was an administrative action but no unfairness was established; the claims rested on disputed facts not provable by petition
Advertising vacancies was an administrative action under the Fair Administrative Action Act. However, the dispute over staff audit and breach of the Memorandum of Agreement raised questions of fact requiring viva voce evidence and cross-examination. Without that, the alleged violations remained speculative and no constitutional violation was disclosed.
Whether rights had crystallised
Members had not applied for the advertised positions, so any right was yet to crystalise
The court noted the members took no definitive step in response to the advertisement, meaning no actual violation had yet occurred; the alleged harm remained prospective and speculative.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proving infringement of a right lies on the person alleging the violation
- A petition pleading disputed contractual/factual matters without oral evidence fails to disclose a constitutional violation
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is struck out with no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 23(3) of the Constitution and Section 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (as invoked by the Petitioner)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya County Government Workers Union v Nairobi City County Government & another [2022] KEELRC 922 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Petition No E123 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/922/eng@2022-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.