Kiage v Public Service Board - Kisii County Government & 2 others (Cause E087 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2149 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a county board cannot unilaterally terminate contracts, awarding an unfairly dismissed officer four months' salary plus costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant was an employee of the 3rd respondent
Yes; the respondents admitted the employment relationship in their memorandum of response and the claimant's regularisation and renewals confirmed it
The respondents admitted in paragraph 3 of their memorandum of response that the claimant was an employee and acknowledged his re-designation as Administrative Officer I. Letters of 8th January 2015 confirming regularisation and subsequent contract renewals corroborated the relationship. The court held that the respondents neither pleaded nor evidenced that the contract was illegal, and counsel's submission on illegality was an overreach.
Whether Sections 74 and 75 of the County Governments Act authorised the unilateral variation and termination of the claimant's contract
No; Section 74 does not authorise unilateral interference with existing contracts, and Section 75 was not available because no investigation or satisfaction of irregularity or fraud was demonstrated
The court held that 'regulate' under Section 74 does not empower the Board to unilaterally interfere with existing contracts, and other laws including the Constitution and Employment Act remain part of the matrix. On Section 75, the respondents adduced no evidence that they ascertained any irregularity or fraud, investigated it, and were satisfied that termination was the optimal corrective action.
Whether termination of the claimant's employment was unfair
Yes; there was neither valid and fair reason nor fair procedure
The variation letter gave no reason and termination preceded it. No procedural formalities under Section 41 of the Employment Act were complied with, making the termination procedurally flawed. The respondents failed to demonstrate substantive justification or fair procedure as required by Section 45(2) of the Employment Act, and the claimant's age, cited after the fact, was not a term of the fixed-term contract.
Legal principles established
#- Section 74 of the County Governments Act, though involving control, does not confer authority on a County Public Service Board to unilaterally interfere with existing contracts of employment without observing the Constitution and the Employment Act
- Due process in removal, dismissal or disciplinary action against a public officer is a constitutional imperative under Article 236
- A unilateral variation of an essential term of a contract of employment amounts to repudiation and is subsumed in the fair labour practice principle
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that termination of the claimant's employment by the respondent was unfair
- 2.Equivalent of four (4) month's gross salary
- 3.Costs of this suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment and labour relations claim under the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiage v Public Service Board - Kisii County Government & 2 others (Cause E087 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2149 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E087 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2149/eng@2025-07-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.