Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition dated 20th September, 2021· [2025] KEELRC 1895 (KLR)

Sifuna v County Government of Nairobi & another (Petition E147 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1895 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 June 2025
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
1,406 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed an employee's claim that his salary stoppage and lock-out were unconstitutional because he offered no evidence to prove it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, an employee of the 1st Respondent, petitioned the Employment and Labour Relations Court alleging that after taking leave in November 2015 and extending it due to ill health, he was locked out of his workplace and his salaries and allowances stopped indefinitely without lawful cause, notice or a hearing, in breach of Articles 41, 47, 50 and 159 of the Constitution and the Employment Act, 2007. He sought declarations of unconstitutionality, quashing of the stoppage and lock-out, payment of Kshs4,731,650/- plus subsequent months, allocation of duty dates, and alternatively terminal benefits and compensation up to retirement. The Respondent denied the Petition, contending the Petitioner extended his leave without permission, absented himself without lawful cause, was issued a show-cause letter but failed to respond, and that any dismissal complied with section 44(4) of the Employment Act. The court framed three issues: unconstitutionality of the stoppage, entitlement to relief, and costs. It held that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the alleged violations and produced no evidence; his absence without notice justified the Respondent's actions, and the matter was a simple termination for just cause rather than a constitutional question. Finding no violation, the court held the Petitioner disentitled to the reliefs sought and dismissed the Petition, directing each party to bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the stoppage of salaries and lock-out were unconstitutional

Holding

No constitutional breach established; the claim fails for want of evidence

Reasoning

The Petitioner asserted breaches of Articles 41, 47, 50 and 159 and unfair termination, but produced no evidence of the violations. The court accepted the Respondent's reliance on the burden-of-proof principle and found that the Petitioner absented himself from duty without notice, ignored the show-cause letter, and that the dismissal was for just cause rather than a constitutional issue.

p. 3
02

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the relief sought

Holding

No; dismissal of the petition follows from the finding of no violation

Reasoning

Having found no breach of the Constitution, the court held that the Petitioner cannot be entitled to the declaratory, quashing, payment and compensation reliefs sought. The court accordingly dismissed the petition and, unusually for a dismissed petition, ordered that each party bear their own costs rather than awarding costs to the Respondent.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The legal burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue
  • Where no constitutional violation is established, constitutional reliefs fall away

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Petition is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party bears their own costs of the Petition

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 41, 47, 50, 58, 159, 236, 75, 47(2), 49
  • Employment Act, 2007sections 17, 35, 36, 41, 43, 44(4), 45
  • Fair Administrative Action Actsection 9(4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Maurice Kawilwa v South Eastern University College
    [2015] eKLR
  • Janet Nyandiko v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    [2017] eKLR
  • Evans Otieno Nyakwana v Cleophas Bwana Ongaro
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Articles 41, 47, 50, 159)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sifuna v County Government of Nairobi & another (Petition E147 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1895 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 20th September, 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1895/eng@2025-06-25

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