Toromo v Baringo County Government & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E002 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 118 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a county doctor's removal as Chief Officer was unfair because the County Public Service Board never heard his side, awarding him Kshs. 4 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competency of the constitutional petition
The petition did not meet the Anarita Karimi Njeru precision threshold, but the court entertained it under Article 159 and section 20 of the ELRC Act to do substantive justice
The Petitioner cited Articles 1, 2(1), 27, 41, 47, 48, 165(7) and 258 but did not demonstrate how each was violated. Although statutory remedies under the Employment Act and ELRC Act were adequate, the court declined to dismiss the petition on technicality, invoking Article 159 and section 20 of the ELRC Act which enjoin substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities.
Whether the release of the Petitioner back to the Ministry of Health amounted to unfair termination
The termination was unfair: it was not done by the County Public Service Board, without the Petitioner's representations, and in contravention of his appointment letter
The appointment letter of 3rd September 2018 revised the contract to four years and made no reference to secondment, so lapse of secondment was not a term of employment. Section 73(5) of the County Governments Act requires the County Public Service Board to decide on secondment after hearing representations. The Respondents unilaterally transferred the Petitioner without complying, making the termination unfair.
Appropriate remedies
Compensation of 10 months' salary awarded; nullity, constructive dismissal, certiorari and punitive damages refused
Having found unfair termination, the court awarded compensation under section 49(4) of the Employment Act, considering the orchestrated and malicious manner of the termination. Declaratory relief of nullity was refused because the end of employment was an irrevocable fact; certiorari was unavailable; punitive damages did not meet the Rookes v Benard threshold.
Legal principles established
#- A person seeking constitutional redress must set out with reasonable precision the provisions said to be infringed and the manner of infringement
- Not every violation of the law constitutes a constitutional violation where statutory remedies exist, but the court may still grant statutory relief in the interest of substantive justice
- Only the County Public Service Board may decide on secondment after hearing the officer's representations under section 73(5) of the County Governments Act
- A fixed-term appointment's term is not defeated by a separate lapse of secondment where secondment was not a term of the employment contract
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the termination of the Petitioner's appointment by letter dated 8th December 2020 was unfair and unlawful
- 2.Award of compensation equivalent to 10 months' salary in the sum of Kshs. 4,005,610 pursuant to section 49(4) of the Employment Act
- 3.The Respondents shall bear the Petitioner's costs of this suit
- 4.Interest to accrue from the date of judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 165(7) and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Toromo v Baringo County Government & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E002 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 118 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 26th January 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/118/eng@2025-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.