Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 481 (KLR)

Republic v Kajiado County Public Service Board; Public Service Commission (Interested Party); Gitonga & another (Exparte Applicants) (Judicial Review Application E017 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 481 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 February 2025
BOByram Ongaya
1,042 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ordered Kajiado County to implement a Public Service Commission ruling on two seconded accountants, converting it into an enforceable judgment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Two ex-parte applicants, Accountants employed by the Public Service Commission in 2010 and 2011 and seconded upon devolution to Kitengela and Loitoktok Sub-County Hospitals in Kajiado County, moved the court by notice of motion dated 04.12.2024 under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. They sought adoption as a judgment of the court of a PSC decision dated 13.09.2023, mandamus compelling the respondent (County Government of Kajiado and the Kajiado County Public Service Board) to enforce that decision as a decree, consequential orders and costs. The PSC decision required the county to absorb the applicants into permanent and pensionable employment, consider a salary increment within 12 months, and consider them for promotion, with implementation directed against the County Public Service Board and the County Secretary. Despite service and notice, the respondent and the interested party filed no response or submissions, so the application was unopposed. The court found the decision was directed at the respondents, who had a statutory and public duty to comply but refused, neglected or failed to act; the decision had not been set aside or stayed; and it was just and equitable to safeguard the applicants' labour, economic and social rights. Judgment was entered jointly and severally for the applicants: the PSC decision was adopted as a judgment of the court, mandamus issued compelling enforcement of the decision as a decree, and the respondents were ordered to pay the applicants' costs. Judgment was delivered by Byram Ongaya, Principal Judge, on 21 February 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Enforcement of an unchallenged PSC decision by way of mandamus and adoption as a judgment of the court

Holding

The application succeeded: the PSC decision dated 13.09.2023 was adopted as a judgment of the court and mandamus issued compelling the respondent to enforce it as a decree, with costs to the applicants.

Reasoning

The court found that the PSC decision was directed at the respondents, who were served and had an opportunity to challenge it on revision or appeal but did not. The respondents have a statutory and public duty to act as directed but refused, neglected or failed to comply. The application was unopposed despite service, no stay or setting aside was in place, and the interested party (PSC) did not oppose. The court held it just and equitable to safeguard the applicants' labour, economic and social rights.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A public body with a statutory and public duty to comply with a decision of the Public Service Commission may be compelled by an order of mandamus, and the PSC decision may be adopted as a judgment of the court where the decision is unchallenged and unopposed.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the court adopts as a judgment of the court the decision dated 13.09.2023 by the Public Service Commission sitting at Nairobi as against the respondents
  2. 2.That an order of mandamus is granted compelling the respondent to enforce the PSC decision dated 13.09.2023 as a decree of the court
  3. 3.That the respondents pay the applicants' costs of the proceedings
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and all other enabling provisions of the law; judicial review/mandamus to enforce a decision of the Public Service Commission on fair labour practices under Article 41(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Kajiado County Public Service Board; Public Service Commission (Interested Party); Gitonga & another (Exparte Applicants) (Judicial Review Application E017 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 481 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/481/eng@2025-02-21

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