Kinyua v Governor, Tharaka Nithi County & another; County Assembly of Tharaka Nithi & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2458 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a county governor cannot dismiss a CECM without a valid reason and fair process, awarding her nearly Kshs. 7 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the dismissal violated fair labour practices and fair administrative action (Articles 41 and 47)
Yes - the dismissal was without a valid reason and without due process, violating Articles 41, 47 and 236.
The Governor's power under section 31(a) CGA, as explained by the Court of Appeal in Cecilia Wangechi Ndung'u and Idriss Aden Mukhtar, must be exercised for a valid, compelling reason in the public interest and with due process. The petitioner admittedly responded to the 6th June 2024 letter, so relying on it was invalid. The 4th December 2024 letter was never proved served, so failure to respond could not justify dismissal. The allegations were also unsubstantiated by evidence.
Whether the withdrawal of the petitioner's official car and related treatment amounted to discrimination under Article 27
Yes - the withdrawal of her official car while other CECMs had theirs, and denial of commuter allowance, amounted to discrimination contrary to Article 27.
The respondents did not adduce evidence that no vehicle was available to her. Where an officer is entitled to an official car, the employer has a legal and contractual duty to provide it. Denying one officer while giving others is discrimination and breach of contract. The cumulative violations also constituted inhuman treatment violating her dignity under Article 28.
Appropriate remedies for the constitutional violations and unfair termination
Compensation of 12 months' gross salary (Kshs.4,956,840) under section 49(1) Employment Act, gratuity for 26 months served, and Kshs.2,000,000 general damages for constitutional violations; reinstatement refused.
Guided by the Court of Appeal in Idriss Aden Mukhtar, the Employment Act applies to state officers, and section 49(1) is a legitimate guide in awarding damages. Considering that she expected to work a further 3 years and would unlikely obtain comparable employment within a year, 12 months' gross pay was awarded. Reinstatement was impracticable given the breakdown of the relationship.
Legal principles established
#- A Governor dismissing a CECM under section 31(a) of the County Government Act must act for a valid reason in the public interest and follow due process, including a fair hearing.
- An employer who denies one officer an official car while providing it to others discriminates contrary to Article 27 and breaches the contract of service.
- Failure to personally serve a show cause letter means the alleged failure to respond cannot be a valid reason for dismissal.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the dismissal of the petitioner was unfair, unlawful and violated her Constitutional rights.
- 2.Respondents to pay the petitioner Kshs.4,956,840 being compensation for unfair dismissal.
- 3.Respondents to compute and pay the petitioner gratuity for the 26 months served.
- 4.The respondents to pay the petitioner Kshs 2,000,000 as general damages for the violation of her constitutional rights cited above.
- 5.The award is subject to statutory deductions.
- 6.The petitioner is awarded costs and interest at court rates from the date of this judgment.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 23(3) of the Constitution and section 12 of the ELRC Act (employment and labour relations jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kinyua v Governor, Tharaka Nithi County & another; County Assembly of Tharaka Nithi & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2458 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2458/eng@2025-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.