Kenya Union of Pre-Primary Education Teachers v Salaries and Remuneration Commission & 4 others (Petition E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1450 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Murang'a County must pay its ECDE teachers the full salaries advised by the SRC from July 2023, because SRC salary advice binds county employers.
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 suit is premature
- 2.Whether the advice by the SRC on remuneration and benefits of County Government employees is mandatory and binding
- 3.Whether the respondents violated Articles 27 and 41 of the Constitution by failing to implement the SRC advice dated 10th August 2023 on the ECDE teachers
- 4.What appropriate orders should be made
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit was premature for bypassing collective bargaining
The suit was not premature; the objection had been dismissed earlier and the petitioner had exhausted remedies by filing an appeal which the 4th respondent declined to determine
The preliminary objection on prematurity had already been dismissed on 2nd October 2024, and the court declined to give the 2nd respondent a second bite at the cherry through Grounds of Opposition. On the merits, the petitioner had filed an appeal under section 77 of the County Government Act which the 4th respondent declined jurisdiction to determine. The petitioner also had standing under Article 22 as an association acting in the interest of a group, and no recognition agreement or CBA existed with the respondents.
Whether SRC advice on remuneration is mandatory and binding
Yes - SRC advice is mandatory and binding provided it was issued in accordance with Article 230(4)(b) and the statutes
The court adopted the Court of Appeal's holding in the NHIF case that SRC's role is not cosmetic but mandatory and its advice binding per Article 259(ii). The Supreme Court's clarification in Muthuuri that Article 230(4)(b) must be read alongside other provisions was noted. Since no evidence showed the advice of 10th August 2023 was made without complying with the law or considering stakeholder views, the court was satisfied it complied with Article 230(4)(b).
Whether the respondents violated the ECDE teachers' rights
The 2nd respondent violated the right to fair remuneration under Article 41(2) and discriminated against the teachers contrary to Article 27; the other respondents did not violate any rights
Implementation Note 7 of the circular expressly directed that ECDE teachers be placed within the remuneration structure, yet the 2nd respondent continued paying a special salary below the advised amounts. This differential treatment was unjustified and amounted to discrimination under Article 27 and section 5 of the Employment Act, 2007. The 1st respondent had played its role by issuing the advice and the 3rd respondent could only appropriate funds if a budget was tabled.
Legal principles established
#- The SRC's advice on remuneration and benefits of public officers is mandatory and binding, subject to compliance with Article 230(4)(b) of the Constitution and the statutes
- An association may institute proceedings on behalf of a group or class of persons under Article 22 even without a recognition agreement or CBA
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the 2nd Respondent has violated its ECDE teachers' right to fair remuneration
- 2.The 2nd Respondent is ordered and directed to pay its ECDE teachers the salaries and allowances as advised by the SRC vide the circular dated 10th August, 2023 with effect from 1st July, 2023 or when the teachers were employed if the appointment came after the effective date
- 3.The petition against the rest of the respondents is dismissed
- 4.No costs awarded since the petition is a public litigation
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 22 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (petition alleging violation of rights in the Bill of Rights)
Relief refused
#Petition against the 1st respondent (SRC) for failure to enforce its advisory
The 1st respondent played its legal role by issuing the advice; section 13 of the SRC Act imposes no duty to litigate to enforce compliance
Declaration that Murang'a County Assembly is responsible for the injury suffered by the ECDE teachers
The Assembly can only play the role of appropriating funds if a budget is tabled before it
Orders against the 4th respondent for failure to determine an appeal
Case only proved on a balance of probability against the 2nd respondent
Costs
Since the petition is a public litigation, I award no costs.
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.
The role of SRC is not cosmetic; it is mandatory. It is not only mandatory, it is to be sought and obtained prior to taking any action that requires that advice.
I find that the petitioner has the locus standi to bring the suit under Article 22 of the Constitution and the petition is properly before the court.
I am satisfied that the 2nd respondent has violated its ECDE teachers' right to fair remuneration as provided under Article 41(2) of the Constitution.
Such difierential treatment was unjustified and it amounted to discrimination within the meaning of Article 27 of the Constitution and section 5 of the Employment Act, 2007.
The 2nd Respondent is ordered and directed to pay its ECDE teachers the salaries and allowances as advised by the SRC vide the circular dated 10th August, 2023 with efiect from 1st July, 2023 or when the teachers were employed if the appointment came after the efiective date.
Since the petition is a public litigation, I award no costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The petitioner's name is never stated in the judgment; it is described only as 'a trade union registered to represent Early Childhood Education (ECDE) Teachers'. The party names must be inferred from context.
The identity of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents is never expressly set out in the body of the judgment; they are identified only inferentially (e.g. Murang'a County Assembly, Murang'a County Public Service Board, Attorney General).
Case number of the petition is not stated in the judgment, only the filing date.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Pre-Primary Education Teachers v Salaries and Remuneration Commission & 4 others (Petition E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1450 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 10th June 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1450/eng@2025-05-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.