Tutana v County Government of Isiolo & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E037 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2258 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Isiolo County's Governor unlawfully fired a Chief Officer without the County Public Service Board's involvement, and the court ordered Kenya's county government to pay over Kshs. 2.5 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether this Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the matter
- 2.whether the Respondents are properly sued in this case
- 3.Whether the termination of the claimant's contract of service was unfair and unlawful
- 4.whether the reliefs sought are merited
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction / exhaustion of statutory remedies under section 77 CGA and section 87 PSC Act
The court had jurisdiction; the preliminary objection had already been dismissed on 13th January 2025 and the exhaustion argument fails because the dismissal was not a CPSB decision.
The respondents admitted jurisdiction in their Response and did not prosecute their preliminary objection, which was dismissed. Section 77 provides an alternative forum, not an ouster. The PSC appeal mechanism contemplates a decision of the CPSB; here the termination was made solely by the Governor with the advice of the County Secretary, so the statutory appeal process was never triggered, denying the claimant the right to appeal to the PSC.
Whether the respondents were properly sued
Yes - the respondents were the actors in the termination and are responsible for it.
Having found the termination was effected by the Governor and County Secretary without involving the CPSB, the court held the respondents were the parties responsible for the termination and therefore properly before the court.
Validity of the reason for termination (chronic absenteeism)
The reason was not proved; RW1 acted on hearsay and the ECM Education never testified.
The County Secretary admitted under oath he was told of the absenteeism by the ECM Education and did not know whether the allegations were true; he never verified them. The ECM Education gave no evidence. The employer therefore failed to discharge the burden under sections 43 and 45(2) of the Employment Act of proving a valid and fair reason.
Procedural fairness of the dismissal process
Procedure was unfair: no proved service of show cause letter or hearing notice, and the hearing was conducted by persons not authorised by the CPSB.
RW1 admitted the letters bore receiving stamps but no signature of the claimant and that the show cause letter was dated a Sunday. No authorisation from the CPSB for the disciplinary committee members, and no minutes, were produced. The decision was never ratified by the CPSB, denying the claimant the PSC appeal. The process breached section 41 read with section 45(2)(c) of the Employment Act.
Legal principles established
#- Section 77 of the County Governments Act does not oust the ELRC's jurisdiction but merely provides an alternative forum; exhaustion is only contemplated where the termination decision emanates from the CPSB.
- A Governor has no legal mandate to solely terminate the employment contract of a Chief Officer; only the CPSB may exercise disciplinary control and removal under section 59 of the County Government Act.
- An employer bears the burden of proving both a valid reason and fair procedure for termination; an employer alleging abscondment must make reasonable attempts to reach the employee and hear them.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment was unfair, illegal and unlawful
- 2.Payment of amount totalling to Kshs.2,522,260
- 3.Certificate of service
- 4.Costs of the suit plus interests at court rates from the date of this judgment
- 5.The award of damages is subject to statutory deductions
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and County Government Act (claim for unfair termination of a County Chief Officer); jurisdiction objection under section 77 County Governments Act and section 87 PSC Act dismissed
Relief refused
#Claim for leave
lacked particulars and supporting evidence
Compensation above Kshs.2,522,260 (claimant prayed Kshs.7,938,240 including 12 months' gross salary of Kshs.3,602,832)
the court adopted the respondents' offer as reasonable and the appointment-letter salary
Costs
Costs of the suit plus interests at court rates from the date of this judgment (awarded to the claimant).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step.
the County Governor who has no legal mandate to solely terminate employment contract of a Chief oficer or any other employee in the county public service for that matter.
I find and hold that the respondents have miserably failed to prove the validity of the reason cited for terminating the claimant's contract of employment.
Having found that the claimant's employment was unfairly and unlawfully terminated by the respondents and consequently, I enter judgment for him against the respondent as follows:
Costs of the suit plus interests at court rates from the date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the date of the termination letter: the evidence records it as 27th August 2024 while RW1's narrative and the issues section refer to 27th/25th July 2024.
Inconsistent figures for salary in lieu of notice: claimant's figure and respondents' admission are stated differently within the same paragraph.
Discrepancy between the awarded compensation figure (Kshs.1,530,600) and the arithmetic of 6 months' salary at Kshs.255,100, and between gross total awarded (Kshs.2,522,260) and the component awards (255,100 + 1,530,600 + 736,560 = 2,522,260, which is consistent).
The termination date is variously given as 27th August 2024 (introduction) and 27th July 2024 (RW1's evidence).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tutana v County Government of Isiolo & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E037 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2258 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2258/eng@2025-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.