Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 6th February 2024 (Petition)· [2024] KEELRC 2284 (KLR)

Mohamed & 7 others v County Executive Committee Member, Finance, Wajir County & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E001 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2284 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 September 2024
2,768 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to stop the SRC's cuts to MCAs' mileage and plenary allowances, ruling the petitioners showed no strong case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioners, Members of County Assembly, moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 6th February 2024 seeking conservatory orders stopping implementation of Kenya Gazette Vol. CXXIV-No. 145 of 27th July 2022, by which the Salaries and Remuneration Commission reviewed downwards mileages and abolished plenary allowances for MCAs, and an order for reinstatement of the earlier benefits. They argued there was no consultation or public participation, that the process was opaque and amounted to unfair labour practice, and that their constitutional rights faced imminent violation. The 3rd Respondent (SRC) countered that it conducted a job evaluation, engaged the County Assemblies Forum, advertised for public views on 22nd February 2022, and restructured transport benefits into an enhanced package including a car reimbursement, mileage at Kshs 77.35 per km and a monthly car maintenance allowance, with plenary duties compensated within gross remuneration to avoid double payment. The 4th Respondent (Attorney General) filed grounds of opposition asserting the SRC's independence under Article 249(2)(b) and mandate under Article 230. The sole issue was whether conservatory orders were deserved. Applying the established principles, the Court found no prima facie case or proof of constitutional violation; struck out the 1st and 2nd respondents as lacking mandate over the gazette notice; held that public interest opposed the orders since the structure operates across 47 counties; and dismissed the motion, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Petitioners established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success warranting conservatory orders

Holding

No prima facie case or constitutional violation was proved; the SRC acted within its constitutional mandate under Article 230 after public participation

Reasoning

The court reviewed the principles for conservatory orders from Board of Management of Uthiru Secondary School and related authorities. It found the SRC is the constitutionally mandated body under Article 230 to set and review remuneration of state officers, that it undertook stakeholder engagement and public participation via newspaper advertisement of 22/2/2022 and the County Assembly Forum letter of 8/11/2021, and that the petitioners offered only generalised assertions of violation without proof.

p. 6
02

Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents were proper parties to the dispute

Holding

They were struck off as they lack mandate to review or publish gazette notices or review remuneration

Reasoning

The court observed that the petitioners did not establish how the 1st and 2nd respondents infringed their constitutional rights; those respondents possess no authority to review or amend a gazette notice and no mandate to review remuneration of staff. Retaining them would add no value to the suit.

p. 5
03

Whether public interest favours grant of conservatory orders

Holding

Public interest weighs against the orders since the remuneration structure has been implemented across all 47 counties since July 2022 and staying it would occasion pay disparities

Reasoning

The court held that the gazetted remuneration and benefit structures have been in operation in the 47 counties since July 2022; granting orders to stay the notice would create serious disparities in pay for the same job across counties, and the petitioners would lack sufficient remedies even if they succeeded in the main petition.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Conservatory orders require demonstration of an arguable prima facie case with likelihood of success, enhancement of constitutional values, that the petition will not be rendered nugatory, and consideration of public interest
  • A party without mandate over the impugned decision is not a proper party to the suit

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st and 2nd respondents are struck off from the application as they are not proper parties
  2. 2.The Notice of Motion dated 6th February 2024 is dismissed
  3. 3.Each party will meet their respective costs of this application
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 23 and Article 162(2) of the Constitution (constitutional petition for enforcement of Bill of Rights before the Employment and Labour Relations Court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mohamed & 7 others v County Executive Committee Member, Finance, Wajir County & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E001 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2284 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of Motion dated 6th February 2024 (Petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2284/eng@2024-09-20

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