Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedPetition (Isiolo County Assembly) — Notice of Motion dated 17th June 2025, 18th June 2025 and 24th June 2025· [2025] KEELRC 1925 (KLR)

Gurcha v Speaker - County Assembly of Isiolo & another (Employment and Labour Relations Constitutional Petition E010 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1925 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
1 July 2025
5,986 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~24 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled the Isiolo County Assembly Speaker couldn't unilaterally send the Clerk on compulsory leave — only the Board can suspend the Clerk, following proper process.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri (Makau J) determined three interlocutory motions arising from a petition by the Clerk of the Isiolo County Assembly challenging his placement on 30 days' compulsory leave by a letter dated 16th June 2025 signed by the 1st respondent, the Speaker. The petitioner argued that the leave was ultra vires because sections 22 and 23 of the County Assembly Services Act vest the power to suspend or remove the Clerk in the Board alone, acting by resolution and after due process, and that the leave violated Articles 41 and 47 and Article 236 of the Constitution. The Interested Party, a Board member, confirmed no Board resolution sanctioned the leave. The respondents contended the leave was an administrative investigative step, that section 22 required no Board resolution or hearing, and sought review of interim orders of 19th June 2025 to allow the Deputy Clerk to act. They also argued the petition was sub judice. The court found the suit not sub judice since the earlier Nairobi petition had been withdrawn. Applying the Munya test for conservatory orders and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case, the court held that CASA does not provide for compulsory leave, no implementing regulations existed, and the Board alone could suspend the Clerk; the Speaker acting alone acted without legal mandate, rendering the letter a nullity. Public interest favoured the petitioner's return to office. The petitioner's motion dated 17th June 2025 was allowed, the respondents' review motion was overtaken by events, and costs of the three applications were awarded to the petitioner.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the compulsory leave imposed by the 1st respondent was lawful

Holding

The compulsory leave letter was a nullity, imposed without legal mandate since CASA does not provide for compulsory leave and no employer regulations were made

Reasoning

CASA provides only for suspension or removal of the Clerk under section 22, not compulsory leave pending investigations. The employer had not made regulations under section 27 read with section 45 to guide disciplinary powers, and no contract provision was shown permitting compulsory leave. Further, section 22 vests the power to suspend in the Board alone, not an individual member. The Speaker acted alone without Board resolution, rendering the letter ultra vires and void under Article 2(4) of the Constitution.

p. 11
02

Whether conservatory orders should issue

Holding

Yes — the petitioner established a prima facie case with good chances of success, public interest favoured granting the orders, and constitutional values would be upheld

Reasoning

Applying the Munya test, the court found the impugned letter tainted with illegality, so the petitioner's case was arguable and could be rendered nugatory. Public interest favoured suspending the illegal letter since the Clerk is central to Assembly business and his employment should be managed according to law, not individual whim. Granting the orders upheld the rights to fair labour practices and fair administrative action.

p. 11
03

Whether the interim order of 19th June 2025 should be reviewed

Holding

No — the respondents' review application was overtaken by events as the interim order lapsed upon determination of the petitioner's motions

Reasoning

The interim order was expressly to last only until determination of the petitioner's motions. Varying it as proposed would have kept interim orders alive after that determination, which was unnecessary since the court was now issuing conservatory orders pending the petition. The review application was therefore rendered otiose and was marked as overtaken by events.

p. 12
04

Whether the petition was sub judice given Nairobi ELRC Petition E119 of 2025

Holding

No — the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier petition to pursue the instant petition

Reasoning

The respondents argued the petition offended section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act because a similar suit was pending in Nairobi. The court noted the material on record showed the petitioner withdrew Nairobi ELRC Petition No. E119 of 2025 before filing this petition, so there was no subsisting suit and no sub judice bar to the present proceedings.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • Conservatory orders are granted on the inherent merit of a case, bearing in mind public interest, constitutional values and proportionate magnitudes, not on interlocutory-injunction tests
  • A prima facie case in civil matters is one in which a right has apparently been infringed so as to call for an explanation from the opposite party
  • An employer need not accord a hearing before suspension where no contract, regulation or statute requires it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order temporarily suspending the Respondent's decision to place the Petitioner on compulsory leave as communicated in the 1st Respondent's letter dated 16th June 2025, pending the hearing and determination of the Petition
  2. 2.An order restraining the Respondents, their agents, assigns, representatives or any other person acting under their authority from ejecting, blocking, denying access into the office or otherwise impeding the Petitioner from occupying or discharging the functions of the Office of Clerk-Isiolo County, pending the hearing and determination of the Petition
  3. 3.The respondents' Notice of Motion dated 24 June 2025 is overtaken by events
  4. 4.Costs of the three applications to the petitioner
Jurisdiction invoked
Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2)); County Assembly Services Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gurcha v Speaker - County Assembly of Isiolo & another (Employment and Labour Relations Constitutional Petition E010 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1925 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition (Isiolo County Assembly) — Notice of Motion dated 17th June 2025, 18th June 2025 and 24th June 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1925/eng@2025-07-01

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