Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELRC 1956 (KLR)

Kenya County Government Workers' Union v Taita Taveta County Government & another (Cause E031 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1956 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 June 2025
1,815 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court struck out a county worker's claim because he skipped the required internal grievance and Public Service Commission appeal steps first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The respondents, Taita Taveta County Government and the Taita Taveta County Public Service Board, filed preliminary objections dated 2 April 2025 against the claimant's claim and application of 17 March 2025, arguing that the suit breached the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies. They contended that under Article 234(2)(i) of the Constitution, Section 77 of the County Government Act and Section 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act, grievances against the County Public Service Board must first be taken to the Public Service Commission before approaching the court, relying on Karume, Hulbhai Gedi Abdille and related authorities. The claimant, representing grievant Chalambo Yassin, who complained of unlawful stoppage of salary, removal from the payroll, redeployment by letter dated 18 November 2024, unfair labour practices and constructive dismissal, countered that exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine applied, that the PSC could not grant certiorari or remedy constitutional violations, and that the objections were an afterthought since the respondents had already responded to the claim. The court, M. Mbarũ J, applied the exhaustion doctrine as stated in Nyaoga and Kamogo, and Mutanga Tea. It held that the core dispute was redeployment, a matter for the respondents' internal mechanisms and an appeal to the PSC, and that the ELRC's broad jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) and Section 12 of the ELRC Act must be understood in context. It also noted the inconsistency between pleading redeployment and constructive dismissal. The court found the claim premature, struck out the suit, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Exhaustion of alternative remedies as a jurisdictional bar

Holding

The claim is premature and must be struck out because the grievant did not exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanisms and the appeal to the PSC under Article 234(2)(i), Section 77 of the County Government Act and Section 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act

Reasoning

The court held that redeployment, stoppage of salary and removal from payroll are matters within the purview of the County Public Service Board, with an appeal lying to the PSC. The doctrine of exhaustion requires parties to pursue available administrative remedies before approaching the court, and the statutory provisions must be read in conjunction. Exceptions to the doctrine were not shown to apply, so the court's jurisdiction could not be invoked.

p. 4
02

Inconsistency in the claim

Holding

The claim and orders sought are inconsistent, challenging redeployment while simultaneously claiming constructive dismissal

Reasoning

The court observed that the claimant was simultaneously challenging the redeployment letter of 18 November 2024 and asserting constructive dismissal, undermining the coherence of the claim. This inconsistency featured in the court's assessment of the substance of the dispute and reinforced the conclusion that the core issue was redeployment, an administrative matter for the respondents and the PSC.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a clear procedure for redress of a grievance is prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure must be strictly followed before invoking the court's jurisdiction
  • Although the ELRC has broad jurisdiction over constitutional violations, that jurisdiction must be understood in context and the primary forum for employment grievances such as redeployment is the statutory internal mechanisms and the Public Service Commission

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is struck out
  2. 2.Each party is to bear its own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution; Section 12 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 Taita Taveta County Government & another (Cause E031 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1956 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1956/eng@2025-06-30

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