Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissed· [2024] KEELRC 403 (KLR)

Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists and Dentists Union v Nairobi City County Government & 2 others; Nairobi Metropolitan Services (Defunct) & 130 others (Interested Parties) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E904 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 403 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 February 2024
5,985 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~24 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court ruled that doctors hired during Nairobi Metropolitan Services era are county employees, and cannot demand permanent contracts via a national government circular.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a trade union for medical practitioners, pharmacists and dentists, sued to compel the Respondents to convert the fixed term contracts of its members (the 3rd to 131st Interested Parties) into permanent and pensionable terms, relying on a circular dated 3rd August 2021 issued by the 3rd Respondent (the Public Service Commission). The members had been recruited by the 3rd Respondent to serve the Nairobi Metropolitan Services pursuant to the Deed of Transfer of Functions of 25th February 2020, under which the 1st Respondent temporarily transferred healthcare functions to the National Government. The court framed two issues: whether the 2021 circular applied to the members, and whether the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought. The court held that the circular merely operationalized the superannuation scheme under the Public Service Superannuation Scheme Act, which applies only to National Government public officers; the members serve in the county public service, covered by the County Governments Retirement Scheme Act. Applying article 187(2)(b) of the Constitution, the court held that constitutional responsibility for the devolved healthcare function remained with the 1st Respondent despite the temporary transfer, so the members were county, not national, employees. Staffing authority vests in the 2nd Respondent under section 59 of the County Governments Act, and any conversion or renewal is for it to decide in consultation with the 1st Respondent. The 2nd Respondent ratified the recruitments by retaining the members for the balance of their contracts, but only for that duration. The suit was held misconceived and dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 3rd Respondent's circular of 3rd August 2021 applied to the Claimant's members

Holding

It did not. The circular addressed operationalization of the superannuation scheme under the Public Service Superannuation Scheme Act, which applies only to public officers serving in the National Government, not the county public service where the Interested Parties serve.

Reasoning

The court found the circular required conversion of fixed term contracts only to enable eligibility for the Public Service Superannuation Scheme established under the Act. Section 2 of the Act confines the scheme to National Government public officers. The Claimant's members serve in the county public service, catered for under the County Governments Retirement Scheme Act. Relying on the KNUNN decision, the court held the circular did not and does not apply to them.

p. 12
02

Whether the 3rd to 131st Interested Parties are employees of the National Government or the county public service

Holding

They were recruited to perform a function constitutionally devolved to the 1st Respondent and are serving and continue to serve in the county public service.

Reasoning

Under article 187(2)(b), constitutional responsibility for healthcare remained with the 1st Respondent despite temporary transfer to the National Government via the Deed of Transfer of Functions. The National Government, through the NMS, acted only as delegate. The recruitments by the 3rd Respondent were done under ostensible delegated authority under the Deed, not under its constitutional mandate under article 234, and the 2nd Respondent ratified the process by retaining the employees for the balance of their contractual tenure.

p. 15
03

Whether the Respondents are obliged to absorb the Claimant's members on permanent and pensionable terms

Holding

No. Conversion or renewal of the contracts is a matter for the 2nd Respondent, in consultation with the 1st Respondent, under section 59 of the County Governments Act.

Reasoning

The court held that the Deed of Transfer of Functions contemplated secondment, not permanent absorption, and clause 5.7 required consultation with the 2nd Respondent on human resource matters. A circular directing absorption would exceed the 3rd Respondent's powers under article 234 and conflict with section 59 of the County Governments Act. The Handover Framework of 30th September 2022 provided for absorption only subject to vacancies and need.

p. 14

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a function is transferred between levels of government under article 187, constitutional responsibility for the function remains with the level to which it is assigned by the Fourth Schedule; the receiving government acts only as a delegate.
  • The statutory mandate for staffing County Governments vests in County Public Service Boards under section 59 of the County Governments Act; the Public Service Commission's mandate over county governments is confined to hearing and determining appeals from county public service.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The case is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 187(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 187(2)(b)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 234(2)(i)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Fourth Schedule
  • County Governments ActSection 59
  • Public Service Superannuation Scheme ActSection 2
  • County Governments Retirement Scheme Act
  • ELRC Procedure RulesRule 28(3)
  • Deed of Transfer of Functions dated 25th February 2020Clauses 5.6 and 5.7
  • Framework for the Handover of Transferred Functions (30th September 2022)Articles 3.3(a) and 3.3(b)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kenya National Union of Nutritionists and Dieticians v Nairobi City County Government & 2 others
    (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E972 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 188 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution (Employment and Labour Relations Court) - the judgment does not expressly invoke it

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists and Dentists Union v Nairobi City County Government & 2 others; Nairobi Metropolitan Services (Defunct) & 130 others (Interested Parties) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E904 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 403 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/403/eng@2024-02-29

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