Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedConstitutional Petition and Notice of Motion dated 6th December 2022 (Busia ELRC, filed 9th December 2022)· [2023] KEELRC 686 (KLR)

Nabulindo v County Public Service Board, Busia County & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E013 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 686 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
16 March 2023
4,583 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

#

A Kenyan court blocked Busia County from demoting its Municipal Manager, confirming public officers cannot be moved to lower-acting roles without consent.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, Kenneth Nabulindo, was appointed Municipal Manager of Busia County in 2019 and confirmed in 2022 on permanent and pensionable terms. By a letter dated 23rd November 2022, the County Secretary deployed him to act as Principal Administrative Officer in the Department of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, a position below his substantive rank, swapping places with Kennedy David Maende. He filed a constitutional petition alleging violation of Articles 25, 27, 35, 41, 47, 50 and 51, together with a Notice of Motion seeking temporary injunction and conservatory orders. Lady Justice Christine Baari had earlier granted a temporary injunction on 14th December 2022. The respondents countered that they had powers to transfer staff, that the petitioner complied with the transfer, that his salary and benefits were unaffected, and that there was no evidence of competitive recruitment to his position. The court applied both Giella v Cassman Brown and Gatirau Peter Munya since the petition mixed constitutional and employment issues. It found the deployment amounted to a re-designation to a lower rank on acting capacity without consent, contrary to clauses B31 and B22 of the applicable Human Resources Manuals, and violated Article 236's protection against demotion without due process. A prima facie case of violation of fair labour and fair administrative action rights was established, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicant. The court granted the conservatory order and temporary injunction staying the deployment and Maende's appointment, quashed decisions taken in breach of the earlier interim order, awarded costs to the applicant, and directed the main petition be heard on a priority basis.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the deployment of the applicant from Municipal Manager to Acting Principal Administrative Officer met the threshold for temporary injunction and conservatory orders

Holding

Yes - a prima facie case of violation of fair labour and fair administrative action constitutional rights was established; the deployment amounted to an unconsented re-designation to a lower rank on acting capacity

Reasoning

The court found the deployment to a lower rank in acting capacity contravened clause B31 of the Human Resources Policies and Procedures Manual (deployment on substantive posts) and clause B22 of the County Public Service Human Resources Manual which prohibits re-designation that disadvantages an officer or without consent. The salary remaining unaffected did not cure the breach, and the deployment violated Article 236 of the Constitution against demotion without due process.

p. 9
02

Which legal principles govern an application combining temporary injunction and conservatory orders pending a constitutional petition

Holding

Both Giella v Cassman Brown (for the injunction) and Gatirau Peter Munya (for conservatory orders) apply since the petition mixes constitutional and employment contract issues

Reasoning

The court reasoned that the Giella criteria are linked to private-party issues of irreparable harm and prospects of success, while conservatory orders in Gatirau Peter Munya are granted on the inherent merits bearing in mind public interest and constitutional values. Because the petition is a mixture of constitutional issues and employment contract, both decisions were held applicable.

p. 8
03

Whether irreparable injury needed to be demonstrated once a prima facie constitutional violation was established

Holding

No - once violation of fair labour and fair administrative action rights is established on a prima facie basis, the court cannot condone it even if damages could compensate

Reasoning

The court held that the compensation-by-damages question became irrelevant because constitutional violations, once established on a prima facie basis, cannot be condoned. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant who held a valid, confirmed appointment as Municipal Manager issued by the County Public Service Board, the statutory appointing body, with no evidence displacing that appointment.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • A court will only interfere with internal management processes of an employer such as deployment and transfers if illegalities are established
  • A public officer holding a substantive senior post cannot be deployed to a lesser rank position on acting capacity without his consent
  • Conservatory orders, unlike interlocutory injunctions, should be granted on the inherent merits of the case bearing in mind public interest, constitutional values and proportionate magnitudes

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A conservatory order and temporary injunction issued against the Respondents jointly and severally staying the implementation and enforcement of the applicant's deployment vide letter dated 23rd November, 2022 and staying the appointment of Kennedy David Maende pending hearing and determination of the Petition
  2. 2.An order quashing any decision or action done pursuant to the letter dated 23rd November, 2022 in violation of the interim order of temporary injunction granted on 14th December, 2022
  3. 3.Costs of the Application to the Applicant
  4. 4.The main petition to be set down for hearing on priority basis

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 25, 27, 35, 41, 47, 50, 51, 201, 236
  • Urban Areas and Cities Act No. 13 of 2011Sections 13, 13A, 14, 28, 29
  • Urban Areas and Cities (Amendment) Act No. 3 of 2019Sections 13A, 14(2), 14(2)(e)
  • County Government Act, 2012not specified
  • Human Resources Policies and Procedures Manual for Public Service, May 2016Clauses B31(1) and (2), B32
  • Public Service Commission County Public Service Human Resources Manual, May 2013Clauses B22, B22(3)(c)

Cases cited (5)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown Co. Ltd.
    [1973] EA 358
  • East African Industries v Trufoods
    [1972] EA 420
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Gihinji & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenyatta University v Esther Njeri Maina
    Civil Appeal No. 261 of 2020
Jurisdiction invoked
Constitutional petition under Articles 25, 27, 35, 41, 47, 50 and 51 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (petition invoking violation of Bill of Rights and fair labour practices)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nabulindo v County Public Service Board, Busia County & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E013 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 686 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Constitutional Petition and Notice of Motion dated 6th December 2022 (Busia ELRC, filed 9th December 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/686/eng@2023-03-16

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