Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutPetition dated 26th September 2024· [2025] KEELRC 2158 (KLR)

Juma & 4 others (Petitioners on their Behalf and on Behalf of 285 Other Casual Labourers at the National Police Service) v National Police Service Commission & 6 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E148 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2158 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 July 2025
6,430 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~26 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court struck out a police casual workers' petition because the 285 workers it claimed to represent were unnamed and never authorised the case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioners, casual civilian staff of the National Police Service engaged between 2018 and 2022 following approval by the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior, petitioned for declarations that their termination on 5th July 2024 and their exclusion from the recruitment of 1,070/1,045 civilian positions violated Articles 10, 41 and 232 of the Constitution and sections 37 and 45 of the Employment Act, and sought an order for fresh recruitment. The 1st and 2nd Respondents contended that the Employment Act does not apply to members of the National Police Service including civilians, that the casual engagements were void ab initio as they were made by officers without authority to recruit, that the recruitment was competitive and transparent, and that the Petitioners had no legitimate expectation of absorption. The 3rd to 5th Respondents similarly argued the petition failed the Anarita Karimi Njeru precision standard and that 91 qualified casuals were among those recruited. The court found that although the petition was filed on behalf of 285 other casual labourers, those individuals were undisclosed, unnamed and had not authorised the filing, rendering the petition defective. The court held the petition largely incompetent, found it unmerited, struck it out and made no order of costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competence of the representative petition

Holding

The petition was struck out because the 285 other casual labourers it purported to represent were undisclosed and gave no authority

Reasoning

The court observed that the letter to the Inspector General was signed by only three people and the names of the officers represented were not indicated. It was therefore not clear who the 285 others were, and without disclosure and authorisation the petition lacked material facts and could not proceed.

p. 13
02

Authority to recruit within the National Police Service

Holding

The court noted that appointment and termination of service in the Police Service is a preserve of the National Police Service Commission, which never participated in recruiting the Petitioners as casuals

Reasoning

The court observed that the casual engagement was initiated by the 2nd Respondent on periodic contracts, whereas the power to appoint and terminate in the Police Service rests with the 1st Respondent, which was not involved in the initial recruitment. This formed the background to the dispute but was not determinative given the striking out.

Legal principles established

#
  • A representative petition filed on behalf of undisclosed persons who have given no written authorisation is defective and incompetent

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Petition struck out
  2. 2.No order of costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 10, 24(5), 27, 35, 41, 47, 165, 232, 246, 246(3), 246(3)(a)
  • Employment ActSections 3(2)(b), 35(1)(c), 37, 45
  • National Police Service ActSections 2(1), 23, 26
  • National Police Service Commission ActSection 10(1)(e)
  • National Police Service Commission (Recruitment and Appointment) Regulations2015
  • Service Standing OrdersChapter 60

Cases cited (6)

  • Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic
    [1979] KECA 12 (KLR)
  • Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others
    [2013] KECA 445 (KLR)
  • Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 Others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenya Revenue Authority v Export Trading Company Limited
    [2022] KESC 31 (KLR)
  • Nyaga v National Police Service Commission & 2 others
    (Petition E048 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 1201 (KLR)
  • Frigoken Limited v Musotsi
    (Civil Appeal 89 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 10642 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 165 of the Constitution (constitutional petition jurisdiction) as an employment and labour relations matter

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Juma & 4 others (Petitioners on their Behalf and on Behalf of 285 Other Casual Labourers at the National Police Service) v National Police Service Commission & 6 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E148 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2158 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 26th September 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2158/eng@2025-07-23

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