County Government of Marsabit v Kenya Union of Clinical Officers (KUCO) & another (Cause E043 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 814 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court declared a Marsabit health workers' strike illegal because hospital services are essential services where strikes are legally prohibited.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the claimant has locus standi to bring this suit.
- 2.Whether the suit is premature.
- 3.Whether the impugned strike is unprotected and illegal.
- 4.Whether the reliefs sought are merited.
Key legal issues
#Locus standi of the county government to sue under section 77 LRA
The claimant, whose employees render hospital services in an essential service, had locus standi under section 77 to seek prohibition of the strike.
Section 77 permits a party that has received a strike notice to apply urgently to prohibit a prohibited strike. The claimant operates public hospitals where the respondents' members work as clinical officers and nurses. Hospital services are listed in the Fourth Schedule as essential services, and section 78(1)(f) and 81(3) prohibit strikes in essential services, so the claimant could sue.
Whether the suit was premature for failure to report the dispute to conciliation
The suit was not premature; sections 77(1) and 81(4) expressly allow urgent adjudication of disputes in essential services.
Section 77(1) and 81(4) of the Labour Relations Act permit a party served with a strike notice in an essential service to bring legal action to prohibit it, and the court to adjudicate such a dispute as a matter of urgency. The statutory text therefore displaces any argument that prior conciliation was a condition precedent.
Whether the strike was protected under Article 41 and section 76 LRA
The strike was premature and unprotected: the section 76 procedure was not complied with and the right to strike was prohibited under sections 78 and 81 as the employees render essential services.
Article 41(2)(d) grants the right to strike, but it is not an absolute right and may be limited under Article 24. The ILO likewise accepts limitation in essential services. There was no minimum-service agreement, the respondents did not report the dispute for conciliation after the Return to Work Agreement, and hospital services are essential services.
Legal principles established
#- A party served with a strike notice in respect of an essential service has locus standi under section 77 of the Labour Relations Act to apply urgently to prohibit the strike.
- The constitutional right to strike under Article 41 is not absolute and may be limited by legislation under Article 24, as with essential services.
- For a strike to be protected, the dispute must have been subjected to conciliation and seven days' written notice given, and the parties must not be engaged in essential services.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the strike by the 1st and 2nd Respondent's members which commenced on 16th September 2024 is illegal and unprotected.
- 2.A declaration that the Respondents' union members belong to essential service providers in the strict sense hence prohibited/limited from participating in strikes as provided by section 78(1)(f) and section 81(3) of the Labour Relations Act, CAP 233.
- 3.An order compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to call off the strike and the Respondents' members working for the County Government of Marsabit to resume work with immediate effect.
- 4.The Respondents are condemned to pay costs of the suit.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 77, 78(1)(f) and 81(3)-(4) of the Labour Relations Act (Industrial Court jurisdiction to prohibit strikes in essential services)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
A declaration that the strike by the 1st and 2nd Respondent's members which commenced on 16th September 2024 is illegal and unprotected.
An order compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to call of the strike and the Respondents' members working for the County Government of Marsabit to resume work with immediate efiect.
In view of the foregoing, I find that the employer and the employees herein are engaged in essential services and the right to strike or lock-out is expressly prohibited by section 78 (1) (f) and 81(3) of the Labour Relations Act.
the above rights are not among the absolute rights guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. Therefore, the same can be limited by a legislation pursuant to Article 24 of the Constitution.
Issues in the judgment
#The 2nd respondent is never identified by name anywhere in the judgment; the parties are repeatedly referred to only as 'the 1st respondent' and 'the 2nd respondent'.
Inconsistent dates for the Return to Work Agreement - paragraph 6 states it was signed on 8th July 2024, while the 1st respondent's submissions refer to one signed on 17th November 2023.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- County Government of Mombasa v Kenya National Union of Nurses (Cause E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2960 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2960 (KLR)30 Oct 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Marsabit v Kenya Union of Clinical Officers (KUCO) & another (Cause E043 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 814 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Statement of claim dated 1st October 2024 (ELRC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/814/eng@2025-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.