Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Claim dated on or before 25th March 2025)· [2025] KEELRC 1863 (KLR)

Kenya County Government Workers Union v Kericho Water and Sanitation Company Limited (Cause E012 of 2005) [2025] KEELRC 1863 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 June 2025
JRJames Rika
747 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant Union brought a Claim on behalf of nine former employees, some branch officials, dismissed by the Respondent on 24th February 2024 for participating in an allegedly illegal strike, contrary to a return-to-work formula. By an application dated 25th March 2025 supported by the affidavit of General Secretary Roba Sharu Duba, the Union sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the Respondent from filling the positions formerly held by the dismissed employees pending determination of the Claim. The Respondent filed Grounds of Opposition dated 2nd May 2025, arguing lack of legal capacity in the Claimant, want of pecuniary jurisdiction given the employees' salaries below Kshs. 80,000, conclusion of the disciplinary process, the essential nature of its services, and that fairness of termination cannot be determined on an interlocutory application. The parties agreed the application be determined on pleadings, affidavits and submissions. The Court held the matter is a labour relations dispute presented by a trade union on behalf of members, properly before the E&LRC under Section 12(1)(b) of the E&LRC Act, and rejected the jurisdictional objection. However, it declined the injunction: the Claimant offered no reason to restrain recruitment into essential water and sanitation services, produced no evidence of the positions held or that recruitment had commenced, and adequate remedies, including compensation, damages and reinstatement, exist in the substantive Claim. The Court cautioned that recruitment would not place reinstatement beyond the employees, and that dismissal of union officials for legitimate trade union activities is deprecated by Section 46 of the Employment Act and ILO Convention 135. The application was declined with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction over the Claim

Holding

The objection on pecuniary jurisdiction was rejected; the matter is a labour relations dispute properly before the E&LRC

Reasoning

The Claim originates in a trade dispute involving strike action and a return-to-work formula. Because it is presented by a trade union on behalf of its members, it falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the E&LRC under Section 12(1)(b) of the E&LRC Act, and not within the pecuniary jurisdiction limits governing employment claims at the Chief Magistrate's Court.

p. 2
02

Whether to grant the interlocutory injunction

Holding

The application for an interlocutory restraint was declined

Reasoning

The Claimant gave no good reason to restrain recruitment into positions tied to essential services, supplied no evidence of the positions held or that recruitment had commenced, and adequate remedies including compensation, damages and reinstatement are available in the substantive Claim. The Court cautioned that recruitment would not defeat reinstatement if the Claim succeeds.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A labour relations dispute presented by a trade union on behalf of its members is properly before the E&LRC irrespective of pecuniary jurisdiction limits applying to employment disputes at the Chief Magistrate's Court
  • Filling the positions of dismissed Employees does not by itself render reinstatement unobtainable
  • Dismissal of trade union officials for engaging in legitimate trade union activities, including lawful strikes, amounts to unfair dismissal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application filed by the Claimant dated 25th March 2025 is declined
  2. 2.No order on the costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12(1)(b) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya County Government Workers Union v Kericho Water and Sanitation Company Limited (Cause E012 of 2005) [2025] KEELRC 1863 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Claim dated on or before 25th March 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1863/eng@2025-06-27

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