Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment text supplied· [2023] KEELRC 3021 (KLR)

Kenya National Union of Nurses v Ministry of Health & another (Cause E617 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3021 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 November 2023
2,006 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled the Ministry of Health's organogram was unlawful because it left out the nursing directorate required by the Health Act.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court by a Statement of Claim dated 5th September 2022 seeking reinstatement of the Directorate of Nursing Services in the Ministry of Health's administrative organogram, redrafting and adoption of the organogram, and a permanent restraint against the Public Service Commission advertising or implementing an organogram omitting the Directorate of Nursing. The Claimant contended that Section 18 of the Health Act No. 21 of 2017 mandatorily requires directorates for medical services, nursing, pharmaceutical services, public health and administrative services, and that the Respondents formulated the organogram without stakeholder consultation, in breach of the Scheme of Service for Nursing Personnel and as an unfair labour practice violating fair administrative action. The 2nd Respondent, through a Replying Affidavit of its Secretary/CEO Simon K. Rotich, admitted approving the reviewed structure but argued that health is largely devolved under the Fourth Schedule, that Section 18 does not require a stand-alone nursing directorate, and that the organogram is function-based rather than cadre-based. The 1st Respondent did not participate. The matter was disposed of by documentary evidence under Rule 21 of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2016. The court framed one issue: whether the reliefs sought should be granted. Holding that the exhibited organogram omitted nursing services both at directorate and departmental level, and that the Respondents offered no plausible justification for non-compliance with Section 18, the court allowed the claim and directed the Respondents to formulate afresh an organogram consonant with Section 18 of the Health Act, making no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Administrative Organogram excluding the Directorate of Nursing Services is lawful

Holding

The organogram is not in accordance with Section 18 of the Health Act, which mandates the formation of a directorate dealing with nursing, and no department under any directorate covers nursing services.

Reasoning

Section 18 of the Health Act requires the Cabinet Secretary to form directorates including one dealing with nursing. The exhibited organogram contained only six other directorates and none of the departments established under them was responsible for nursing services. The 2nd Respondent's argument that a stand-alone directorate was not required failed because nothing in the organogram covered nursing at all. The Respondents offered no plausible reason for non-compliance with the statute.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An administrative organogram formulated for the Ministry of Health must comply with the express directorates prescribed in Section 18 of the Health Act, and failure to do so without plausible justification renders it unlawful.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claim succeeds and the Respondents are directed to formulate afresh an Administrative Organogram that is in consonance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Health Act
  2. 2.No orders as to costs owing to the nature of the dispute

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Health ActSection 18
  • Health ActSection 15(1)(a)
  • Health ActSection 15(1)(b)
  • Health ActSection 13
  • Administrative Organogram of the Ministry of Health Act No. 21 of 2017 (as referred to by the Claimant)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 234
  • Constitution of KenyaFourth Schedule
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 43
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016Rule 21
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Scheme of Service for Nursing Personnel
  • ILO Nursing Personnel Convention No. 149Article 2
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations dispute (specific provision not stated in the judgment text supplied)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya National Union of Nurses v Ministry of Health & another (Cause E617 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3021 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment text supplied. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3021/eng@2023-11-24

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