Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMalindi Misc. Application No. E007 of 2025 (Lead file, consolidated with E008 of 2025)· [2025] KEELRC 1848 (KLR)

Islam & another v County Secretary – Lamu County & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application E007 & E008 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 1848 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 June 2025
MMM. Mbarũ
1,241 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A county government must obey a Public Service Commission reinstatement order — financial problems don't excuse ignoring it once the appeal window closes.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Employment and Labour Relations Court at Malindi (sitting in Mombasa) consolidated two miscellaneous applications (E007 and E008 of 2025) arising from similar facts against the same respondents, with E007 as the lead file. The applicant, employed as a Coxswain by the County Government of Lamu in April 2020 and made permanent and pensionable from 1 July 2021, was removed from the payroll without notice or hearing. He appealed to the Public Service Commission, which on 13 March 2024 ordered his reinstatement and payment of withheld salaries, allowances and benefits, with a right of appeal within six months that the respondents never exercised. The applicant moved the court under section 89 of the PSC Act seeking adoption and enforcement of the PSC decision as a judgment with a decree. The respondents, through the County Secretary, admitted non-compliance but cited financial constraints - exceeding the 35% recurrent expenditure ceiling - and the filled position, and asked the court to substitute the PSC decision with section 49 Employment Act remedies. The court held its role at the enforcement stage is confined to enforcing the PSC decision, not addressing facts; the respondents' objections should have been pursued by appeal or review before the PSC. Non-compliance perpetuates unfair labour practices. The court adopted both PSC decisions (13 March 2024 and, for E008, 21 March 2024) as orders of the court, directed that decrees issue, and awarded the applicant costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Adoption and enforcement of a PSC decision under section 89 of the PSC Act

Holding

The PSC decision of 13 March 2024 reinstating the applicant and directing payment of withheld dues was adopted as an order of the court and a decree ordered issued

Reasoning

Section 89(1) permits any person affected by a PSC decision to file it for enforcement in the ELRC. The decision had become final as no appeal or review was filed within the six-month window. The respondents' financial constraints under the Public Finance Management Act did not excuse non-compliance; their objections should have been raised before the PSC by appeal or review. Non-compliance perpetuated unfair labour practices against the applicant.

p. 3
02

Whether financial constraints and the filled position justify refusing enforcement

Holding

No - respondents cannot rely on the Public Finance Management Act and wage-bill constraints to avoid a final PSC decision without pursuing the available appeal or review mechanisms

Reasoning

The respondents admitted no appeal was filed against the PSC decision. The court held that their grounds of financial constraints and the position having been filled were matters for the PSC in an appeal or review, not for the enforcement court. The court does not discover or address facts at the enforcement stage; it merely enforces the PSC decision.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A PSC decision that has not been appealed or reviewed within six months is final and binding, and the ELRC's role on a section 89 filing is confined to enforcement by adoption and issuance of a decree
  • Failure to implement a PSC decision exposes the defaulting officers to disciplinary action including removal from office under section 89(2) of the PSC Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Consolidation of Malindi Misc. Application Nos. E007 and E008 of 2025 with E007 as the lead file
  2. 2.The PSC decision dated 13 March 2024 is adopted as the Order of the Court, reinstating the applicant and directing payment of withheld salaries, allowances and benefits
  3. 3.A decree shall be drawn as per the PSC decision of 13 March 2024
  4. 4.The orders apply to Malindi Misc. Application E008 of 2025; the PSC decision dated 21 March 2024 is adopted as the Order of the Court and a decree issued in terms thereof
  5. 5.The applicant is awarded costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Public Service Commission Actsection 89(1) and (2)
  • Employment Actsection 49
  • Public Finance Management Actsection 107(2)(c)
  • Public Finance Management (County Governments) RegulationsRegulation 25(1)(a) and (b)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 162(2)(a)

Cases cited (2)

  • Wambugu v County Government of Nairobi & another
    [2025] KEELRC 917 (KLR)
  • Murimi v County Government of Kirinyaga & another; Public Service Commission (Interested Party)
    [2024] KEELRC 2194 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 89 of the Public Service Commission Act, read with Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Islam & another v County Secretary – Lamu County & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application E007 & E008 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 1848 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Malindi Misc. Application No. E007 of 2025 (Lead file, consolidated with E008 of 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1848/eng@2025-06-23

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