Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (Notice of motion dated 20th August 2025 in a Claim)· [2025] KEELRC 2438 (KLR)

County Government of Kisii v Kenya National Union of Nurses & Midwives (Cause E019 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2438 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 September 2025
2,598 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ordered Kisii county nurses back to work, ruling their strike illegal because the union extended an old strike notice instead of issuing a fresh one.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court delivered by Nzioki Wa Makau, J on 18th September 2025 in a motion dated 20th August 2025 filed by the County Government of Kisii (Claimant) against the Kenya County Government Workers Union (Respondent). The Claimant sought orders calling off a nurses' strike commenced on 8th August 2025, directing members back to work, and prohibitory orders against further industrial action, contending that nurses are essential service providers under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act and its Fourth Schedule, and that strikes in essential services are prohibited. The Respondent opposed, asserting the strike was protected: a nationwide strike notice dated 29th May 2025 was served, a conciliator was appointed under section 62, and the National Advisory Council resolved on 30th June 2025 to extend the strike notice by thirty days under section 76(6)(b), with the strike to commence on 8th August 2025. The court found the primary issue was whether the strike was protected. It held that the Labour Relations Act does not contemplate extension of a strike notice under section 76(c); the Respondent's cited section 76(6)(b) does not exist in the statute; and the May notice could not support an August strike. No evidence of compliance with minimum service obligations was availed. The strike was declared unprotected and illegal under sections 78(1)(f) and 81 of the Act. The court ordered the strike called off and members to report back to work pending the hearing and determination of the main suit, directed each party to bear its own costs, listed the suit for directions on 15th October 2025, and clarified the orders do not bar negotiations or conciliation under section 77(3).

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 29th May 2025 strike notice, as purportedly extended by the National Advisory Council resolution of 30th June 2025, constituted a valid strike notice under section 76(c) of the Labour Relations Act

Holding

It did not. The Act does not contemplate extension of a strike notice; section 76(6)(b) cited by the Respondent does not exist in the statute, and the correct course was to issue a fresh strike notice.

Reasoning

Under section 76(c) a seven days' written notice must be given before a strike. The notice of 29th May 2025 could not, by a purported resolution of 30th June 2025 citing a non-existent section 76(6)(b), be extended to support a strike commencing 8th August 2025. A strike notice communicates a union's demands and allows the employer to make informed decisions, so extension defeats its purpose.

p. 5
02

Whether the Respondent had complied with minimum service requirements for essential services

Holding

No evidence of minimum service provision was laid; the contention was dismissed as mere allegation.

Reasoning

The Respondent asserted it had adhered to minimum requirements on service provision in essential services, but no evidence was produced as to the number, position and frequency of attendance at health facilities, and no minimum service agreement, registered or unregistered, was availed to the Court.

p. 4
03

Whether interlocutory relief should issue halting the strike

Holding

Yes; the strike was unprotected and illegal, and orders calling off the strike and directing return to work pending the main suit issued.

Reasoning

Having found the strike was commenced without legal foundation and is unprotected under sections 78(1)(f) and 81 of the Labour Relations Act, the court granted orders calling off the strike and directing members back to work pending hearing of the main suit, while preserving the parties' right to negotiate or conciliate under section 77(3).

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The Labour Relations Act does not contemplate the extension of a strike notice issued under section 76(c); a union intending to strike after the original notice has lapsed must issue a fresh strike notice.
  • A strike commenced without a valid notice under section 76(c) of the Labour Relations Act is unprotected and illegal under sections 78(1)(f) and 81 of the Act.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order directing the Respondent and/or their officials, agents or servants, assigns and/or anybody else claiming under them to immediately call off the ongoing strike, picketing or industrial action by the members of the Respondent which started on 8th August 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
  2. 2.An order directing the members of the Respondent's Union to immediately report back to work pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the motion.
  4. 4.The case to be listed for directions as to disposal/hearing of the suit on 15th October 2025 during the court circuit in Kisii.
  5. 5.A clarification that the orders do not bar the parties from engaging in negotiations or conciliation to resolve the dispute in terms of section 77(3) of the Labour Relations Act.
Jurisdiction invoked
Jurisdiction as the Employment and Labour Relations Court over employment and industrial relations disputes (Labour Relations Act, No. 14 of 2007); no specific constitutional or statutory jurisdictional provision cited in the judgment.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "County Government of Kisii v Kenya National Union of Nurses & Midwives (Cause E019 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2438 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of motion dated 20th August 2025 in a Claim). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2438/eng@2025-09-18

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