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 AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2022] KEELRC 1256 (KLR)

Kenya County Government Workers Union (Nairobi Branch) & 2 others v Nairobi City County & 5 others; Ethic and Anti-corruption Commission & another (Interested Parties) (Cause E068 of 2022) [2022] KEELRC 1256 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 July 2022
SRStella Rutto
3,551 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ordered Nairobi City County to immediately pay workers' outstanding salary deductions after the county failed to prove it had remitted the money.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicants, a union and co-applicants representing county employees, moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi under Order 51 Rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for interlocutory orders compelling the 1st Respondent (Nairobi City County Government) to pay full gross salaries, release due pay for October 2021 to January 2022, and settle fines accrued by members with financial institutions. The Applicants alleged that although the Controller of Budget authorized release of funds for gross personnel emoluments totalling Kshs 1,233,177,368.00, the 1st Respondent paid only net salaries and diverted the balance, failing to remit third-party deductions including loans, union dues, SACCO contributions, pension, NHIF, NSSF and PAYE, exposing members to default penalties, frozen accounts and negative credit listings. The Respondents filed Grounds of Opposition and replying affidavits distancing themselves: the 2nd Respondent cited its limited statutory mandate, the 5th Respondent (Controller of Budget) confirmed authorizing withdrawals but disclaimed budget implementation, and the 6th Respondent (Central Bank of Kenya) denied any cause of action. The court framed a single issue: whether the application was merited. Applying the Locabail test, it held the orders sought amounted to a mandatory injunction grantable interlocutorily only in clear cases with special circumstances. The Applicants' evidence of non-remittance was overwhelming while the 1st Respondent offered bare denials without proof of payment, contrary to Sections 17(1) and 19 of the Employment Act. The court granted a mandatory injunction compelling immediate remittance of outstanding third-party deductions and awarded costs against the 1st Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the interlocutory application merited the grant of a mandatory injunction compelling remittance of salaries and deductions

Holding

The application was allowed; the court found a clear case with special circumstances warranting a mandatory injunction, and ordered the 1st Respondent to immediately remit outstanding authorized third party deductions

Reasoning

The orders sought were in substance a mandatory injunction, attracting the Locabail standard requiring special circumstances and clear cases. The Applicants exhibited consistent correspondence from banks, a Sacco and the union demonstrating non-remittance of deductions. The 1st Respondent filed only Grounds of Opposition with bare denials and no evidence of payment. The 5th Respondent's uncontroverted evidence confirmed release of Kshs 1,233,177,368.00 for gross personnel emoluments. The conduct conflicted with Sections 17(1) and 19 of the Employment Act and potentially exposed members to unfair labour practices under Article 41 of the Constitution.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • A mandatory injunction may only be granted at an interlocutory stage in clear cases and where special circumstances exist, the court needing a high sense of assurance that the injunction would be rightly granted at trial
  • Where a party asserts it made payments, bare denials without evidence of remittance will not rebut a claimant's evidence of non-remittance

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st Respondent is ordered to immediately remit the outstanding authorized third party deductions in respect of the Applicants' members.
  2. 2.The 1st Respondent shall meet the costs of this Application.
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Civil Procedure Act/Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (Order 51 Rules 1 and 3; Sections 1A, 1B and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya County Government Workers Union (Nairobi Branch) & 2 others v Nairobi City County & 5 others; Ethic and Anti-corruption Commission & another (Interested Parties) (Cause E068 of 2022) [2022] KEELRC 1256 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1256/eng@2022-07-08

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