Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutNot stated in judgment· [2023] KEELRC 1831 (KLR)

Loyatum & 5 others v West Pokot County Government & 2 others (Cause E007 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1831 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 July 2023
3,343 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court struck out a county workers' salary claim because they skipped the required appeal to the Public Service Commission first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimants filed a Statement of Claim dated 16th December 2022 alleging that the Respondents failed without valid reason to pay their salaries from 1st May 2022, with cumulative arrears said to be about Kshs. 4,579,390. The Respondents filed a notice of preliminary objection dated 18th March 2023 contending that the suit offended the doctrine of exhaustion, section 77 of the County Governments Act, and Rule 9 of the ELRC Procedure Rules, and that the dispute belonged to the Public Service Commission. In written and oral submissions, the Respondents argued that Articles 234(2)(i) of the Constitution, section 77 of the County Governments Act and sections 85 and 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act required the Claimants to first appeal to the PSC. The Claimants relied on exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine, submitting that they wrote to the 3rd Respondent on 13th October 2022 as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, that no mechanism was set up, and that they were threatened with termination for inquiring about their arrears, making internal remedies futile. The court framed twin issues: whether the claim was filed prematurely and whether the court had jurisdiction. Applying Court of Appeal authority, it held that section 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act is mandatory and ousts the court's first-instance jurisdiction, that the issues fell squarely within section 77, and that no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing the PSC. The preliminary objection succeeded; the suit was struck out without prejudice to a fresh suit after exhaustion, with no orders for costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claim was filed prematurely for failure to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms

Holding

The suit was filed prematurely; the Claimants were required to appeal to the Public Service Commission under section 77 of the County Governments Act and sections 85 and 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act before approaching the court.

Reasoning

The issues raised in the claim (salary arrears, surcharge and reversion of employment) fall under section 77 of the County Governments Act and are subject of appeal to the PSC. The 3rd Respondent, accused of failing to set up a dispute resolution mechanism, is not the final authority at that level; the pleadings do not show the Claimants approached the PSC and it failed to resolve the issues. No exceptional circumstances were demonstrated to justify bypassing the appeal process.

p. 7
02

Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the claim

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction at first instance over the claim because the statutory appeal process to the PSC was not exhausted, section 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act being mandatory and ousting the court's jurisdiction in the first instance.

Reasoning

Relying on Court of Appeal authority, the court found that section 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act is couched in mandatory terms and expressly ousts the jurisdiction of the courts in the first instance. A party must first exhaust Part XV of the Public Service Commission Act before approaching the court. Exceptions to exhaustion (as in Krystalline Salt and Fleur Investments) apply only in exceptional circumstances, none of which were established here.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Claims concerning county government public service employment matters such as remuneration and terms of service must first be pursued by appeal to the Public Service Commission under section 77 of the County Governments Act and sections 85 and 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act before approaching the court.
  • Exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine exist but apply only in exceptional circumstances, which the Claimants failed to demonstrate.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Preliminary objection succeeds and the suit is struck out for failure to exhaust the constitutional and statutory dispute resolution machinery before approaching the court
  2. 2.The decision shall not bar the Claimants from filing a fresh suit after exhausting the statutory machinery, provided they come within the statutory limitation period
  3. 3.No orders for costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Article 234(2)(i) of the Constitution read with section 77 of the County Governments Act and sections 85 and 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act (exhaustion doctrine)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Loyatum & 5 others v West Pokot County Government & 2 others (Cause E007 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1831 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1831/eng@2023-07-27

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