Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause E1045 of 2023· [2026] KEELRC 2481 (KLR)

Mukopi & 9 others v Nairobi County Government & 2 others

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 September 2026
6,164 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~25 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court dismissed ten former NMS workers' claims, ruling that fixed-term contracts end on expiry and salary payments alone don't create employment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Ten former employees of the defunct Nairobi Metropolitan Services (NMS), recruited by the Public Service Commission on three-year fixed term contracts tied to the Deed of Transfer of 25th February 2020, sued the Nairobi County Government, the Public Service Commission and the Nairobi County Public Service Board alleging wrongful, unfair and unlawful discrimination in the hiring process and violation of their rights to fair labour practices and fair administrative action. They sought implementation of a PSC circular converting them to permanent and pensionable terms, or absorption or redeployment, declarations under Articles 27, 28 and 41, compensation, damages and costs. The court found the claimants were employees of the NMS, recruited by the PSC, and that the County Government's payment of their salaries for the remainder of the fixed term after NMS's disbandment did not convert them into its employees. The PSC Circular of 3rd August 2021, addressed to 'Authorised Officers' as statutorily defined, did not apply to county governments or the NMS, so no legitimate expectation of conversion arose. Clause 3.3(b) of the Handover Framework made absorption discretionary, subject to vacancies and county needs, while Clause 3.3(c) could not bind the PSC, which was not party to the Framework. A Governor's promise does not bind the county or the CPSB, the only body with statutory power to employ at county level. The claimants failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and no violation of fair administrative action or fair labour practices was proved. The suit was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Identity of employer

Holding

The claimants were employees of the defunct NMS, recruited by the PSC on three-year fixed term contracts tied to the Deed of Transfer, not employees of the County Government, CPSB or PSC

Reasoning

CWI admitted on cross-examination he was employed by NMS and had no contract with the County Government, CPSB or PSC. The Deed of Transfer contemplated secondment and fixed term recruitment; the offer letter required execution of a three-year contract. The court assumed all claimants received similar letters and held their employer was NMS.

p. 8
02

Effect of continued payment after disbandment of NMS

Holding

Payment of salaries by the County Government for the remainder of the fixed term did not transition the claimants into its employees

Reasoning

The earlier written contracts with NMS were still running and the County Government was honouring commitments under the Deed of Transfer. Supervision, control and payment for the remainder of the term did not create an indefinite employment relationship, and a Governor's promise does not bind the county or the CPSB.

p. 9
03

Applicability of the PSC Circular of 3rd August 2021 and legitimate expectation

Holding

The Circular applied only to authorised officers under PSC jurisdiction in MDAs, not to county governments or NMS; no legitimate expectation of conversion arose

Reasoning

'Authorised Officer' is statutorily defined under Section 2 of the Public Service Commission Act as an officer appointed by the Commission in a ministry or state department. NMS was a temporary special purpose vehicle, not a state agency. An inter-governmental circular would have been addressed to, among others, the Council of Governors.

04

Framework for Handover of transferred functions

Holding

Clause 3.3(b) made absorption discretionary, subject to vacancies and county needs; Clause 3.3(c) could not bind the PSC which was not party to the Framework

Reasoning

The Framework was a contract between the Cabinet Secretary and the Governor, neither of whom is an accounting officer or implementing agency. Absorption was not automatic. The privity rule bars enforcement against the non-signatory PSC, and the copy on record had missing pages.

p. 9
05

Discrimination

Holding

No prima facie case of discrimination was established; failure to shortlist or employ does not amount to discrimination

Reasoning

Neither counsel submitted substantively on discrimination. The claimants led no evidence of who was or was not employed, or of vacancies. The claim that only 10 of over 2000 former NMS employees were not absorbed lacked probative value. Section 5(3) of the Employment Act and Article 27 prohibit discrimination, but the claimants discharged no initial burden.

p. 12

Legal principles established

#
  • A fixed term contract carries no rights, obligations or expectation beyond its expiry date; non-renewal is not unfair termination
  • Payment of salary by a third party for the remainder of a fixed term contract does not convert the employee into that party's employee
  • Only the County Public Service Board has statutory power to employ public officers at the county level; a Governor's promise does not bind the county or the CPSB
  • An employee must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination before the burden shifts to the employer under Section 5(7) of the Employment Act
  • Only parties privy to a contract are bound by it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claimants' suit against the respondents is dismissed
  2. 2.Parties shall bear their own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution over employment and labour relations disputes

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mukopi & 9 others v Nairobi County Government & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). Cause E1045 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2481/eng@2026-09-22

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