Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2025] KEELRC 1778 (KLR)

Kenya County Government Workers Union v County Government of Kiambu & 6 others (Cause E234 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1778 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 June 2025
791 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court refused to block Kiambu County from hiring new workers, stressing that unions must try conciliation and act promptly before seeking emergency court orders.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Kenya County Government Workers Union sued seven Respondents on 25 March 2025, alleging violation of constitutional rights, unfair termination and breach of contract concerning about 200 of its members formerly employed by the County Government of Kiambu. Together with the claim it filed a Motion seeking temporary injunctions restraining the 1st to 6th Respondents from recruiting replacement labour pending hearing of the application and the claim, and orders staying the terminations. The Union alleged that the members became permanent employees by operation of law after serving from 2002 to 2023, that the County Government failed to remit NSSF, NHIF and PAYE contributions, failed to pay salaries consistently, discriminated on pay, breached contractual leave entitlements, verbally and unlawfully dismissed the members without involving the Union, and failed to pay terminal dues; appeals to the Public Service Commission were dismissed. The Respondents did not file responses or submissions, and there was no affidavit of service against the 1st to 6th Respondents. The court found the ex-parte orders spent, declined to stay dismissals that had occurred in 2022 over two years earlier, holding that doing so at an interlocutory stage would amount to micromanaging the Respondents' human resource prerogative, and noted the Union had not attempted conciliation under Part VIII of the Labour Relations Act. The Motion dated 25 March 2025 was dismissed with no order on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Union demonstrated a prima facie case, irreparable harm and balance of convenience to justify a temporary injunction and stay of dismissals

Holding

The Motion was found without merit and dismissed.

Reasoning

The court noted the absence of an affidavit of service on the 1st to 6th Respondents, that the ex-parte orders (ii) and (iv) had become spent, that the members were dismissed over two years earlier making a stay imprudent, and that granting the stay would amount to micromanaging the Respondents' human resource functions. The Union also failed to show any attempt at conciliation under Part VIII of the Labour Relations Act.

p. 3
02

Whether ex-parte interlocutory orders remain live after the ex-parte stage

Holding

Proposed orders (ii) and (iv), which sought ex-parte orders, became spent when not granted at the ex-parte hearing stage and were overtaken by events.

Reasoning

The court held that orders not granted at the ex-parte stage cannot be revived at the inter partes hearing; they are overtaken by events and need not be considered on the merits.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A court will not, at an interlocutory stage and without a hearing on the merits, stay dismissals that occurred long ago, as this would interfere with the employer's human resource managerial prerogative
  • A party seeking interlocutory relief must demonstrate that it attempted to have the dispute resolved through the conciliation mechanisms under Part VIII of the Labour Relations Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Motion dated and filed in Court on 25 March 2025 is found without merit and dismissed with no order on costs.
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; employment and labour relations dispute before the Employment and Labour Relations Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya County Government Workers Union v County Government of Kiambu & 6 others (Cause E234 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1778 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1778/eng@2025-06-19

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