Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedPetition (filed June 30, 2023) - number not stated in judgment· [2024] KEELRC 797 (KLR)

Nyakuri & 206 others v Board of Trustees National Social Security Fund (NSSF) (Petition E128 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 797 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 April 2024
2,916 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court threw out NSSF employees' pay and discrimination claims but ordered the Fund to start issuing itemised payslips from May 2024.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioners, serving or former NSSF management employees in grades G5 and G6, alleged discrimination against them as compared to unionisable staff in grades G7 and G8 in the implementation of the 2011 PWC job evaluation and salary restructuring and the 2023 job evaluation. They sought declarations of discrimination, payment of unpaid COLA, appraisal rewards, leave, acting and transfer allowances, pension underpayments, itemisation of consolidated salaries, conversion of G6 staff to MG6, disclosure of the Public Service Commission HR instruments, and a permanent injunction. The respondent opposed the petition, contending that the PWC Report and HR instruments were implemented without Public Service Commission approval and were declared unconstitutional in the COFEK decision, that claims based on them cannot be enforced, that the petitioners never invoked internal grievance procedures, and that all management cadre recommendations were implemented uniformly. The court held that claims founded on the unapproved, unconstitutional instruments must collapse; that no discrimination was established because CBA terms never formed part of the management staff's individual contracts and implementation within the management cadre was uniform; that the disclosure prayer was superfluous as the PSC communication had been exhibited; that aggrieved G6 employees must exhaust internal and appellate remedies; and that consolidated salaries are lawful only where they include reasonable housing provision, which must appear in an itemised pay statement. The petition succeeded only on the pay-statement head: the respondent was ordered to issue itemised payslips from end of May 2024, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Enforceability of claims based on constitutionally defective HR instruments

Holding

Claims based on the PWC Report and HR instruments not approved by the Public Service Commission must collapse

Reasoning

The court adopted the COFEK decision which held that NSSF's human resource instruments and the PWC Report recommendations were implemented without the constitutional approval of the Public Service Commission and were therefore unconstitutional. Claims and prayers resting on those instruments could not be enforced and the petitioners' claims founded on them were unjustified.

p. 5
02

Alleged discrimination against G5 and G6 management staff

Holding

No discrimination established under articles 27 and 41 read with section 5 of the Employment Act

Reasoning

The petitioners are management staff bound by their individual contracts; CBA benefits never became part of their contracts. Further, the recommendations of the PWC Report that were implemented for management cadres G1 to G6 were implemented uniformly across all management grades, and the petitioners did not rebut that position, so no comparative less favourable treatment was proved.

p. 5
03

Prayer for disclosure of the PSC approval communication

Holding

Refused as superfluous since the respondent had already exhibited the communication

Reasoning

The respondent had already delivered the Public Service Commission communication approving the HR instruments and implementation matrix as exhibit CO 11 to the replying affidavit, so granting the disclosure prayer would serve no purpose.

p. 5
04

Conversion of G6 employees to MG6

Holding

Individual grievances must first be pursued through internal and appellate procedures

Reasoning

G6 petitioners who were not converted to MG6 under the PSC-approved instruments may have their grievances considered internally by the respondent, and failing satisfaction may appeal to the Commission or file appropriate court proceedings. The petitioners had not shown exhaustion of those procedures, so the court declined to grant relief at this stage.

p. 6
05

Consolidated salaries and itemised pay statements

Holding

Consolidated pay is lawful only with reasonable housing provision, and an itemised payslip must be issued going forward

Reasoning

Section 31 of the Employment Act permits consolidation only where the consolidated pay includes reasonable provision for housing, which must be shown in the pay statement. Relying on section 20 of the Employment Act, the court ordered the respondent to issue itemised pay statements to the petitioners starting with the salary payment at the end of May 2024.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Claims founded on HR instruments implemented without Public Service Commission approval cannot be enforced as they are unconstitutional
  • A consolidated salary is permissible only where it includes reasonable provision for housing, and the employer must itemise the pay statement accordingly
  • CBA terms do not automatically become incorporated into the contracts of non-unionisable management staff

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the respondent shall henceforth, starting salary payment at the end of May 2024, deliver to the petitioners an itemised pay statement or payslip as contemplated in section 20 of the Employment Act
  2. 2.Each party to bear own costs of the petition

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010article 27; article 41; chapter 6
  • National Social Security Fund Act2013
  • Employment Actsection 5; section 20; section 31

Cases cited (1)

  • Consumer Federation of Kenya (COFEK) suing through its officials Stephen Mutoro, Ephraim Kanake and Henry Ochieng v National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees & Another; Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Social Protection (Interested Party)
    [2022] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 27 and 41 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 as read with the Employment Act, 2007 (employment and labour relations jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyakuri & 206 others v Board of Trustees National Social Security Fund (NSSF) (Petition E128 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 797 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Petition (filed June 30, 2023) - number not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/797/eng@2024-04-08

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