County Government Workers Union (K), Vihiga Branch v County Public Service Board, Vihiga & 2 Others
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a union's application because it was never anchored on a properly filed petition, so no injunctions protecting county workers were granted.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the application as filed is competent?
- 2.Whether the court should issue the conservatory orders as sought?
- 3.What are the appropriate orders for the court to make at this stage?
- 4.Costs.
Key legal issues
#Competency of the application
The application was fatally defective because no petition was filed on the CTS to anchor it.
The CTS is the primary filing system. Only a hard copy of the petition dated 18th March 2026 was in the court file with no evidence of filing or receipt. A notice of motion is not recognised as a suit or pleading under Rule 2 of the ELRC Rules, so interlocutory prayers predicated on an unfiled petition were made in a vacuum.
Whether conservatory orders should issue
No; the interlocutory injunctions could not issue without a properly filed substantive petition, and prayer 4 was overtaken by events.
Interlocutory orders must be predicated on a suit filed as defined by law. Further, the affected employees' salaries had already been restored to lawful scales, and the legality of the delegation instrument and panel composition could only be determined after a substantive hearing.
Legal principles established
#- An application for temporary or interlocutory relief must be anchored on a properly filed substantive suit or petition; a notice of motion is not itself a suit or pleading under the ELRC Rules.
Court orders
#- 1.The application by the Applicant dated 18th March 2026 is incompetent and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.Costs to the Respondents.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 41 and 47 of the Constitution; Article 162(2); Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Temporary injunctions restraining disciplinary proceedings (prayers 2, 3 and 5)
No substantive petition was filed on the CTS; interlocutory relief cannot be anchored on an unfiled petition.
Order directing Respondents to implement the Commission's decision including payment of withheld salaries (prayer 4)
Salaries had already been restored at lawful scales; the issue requires a substantive hearing, not an interlocutory application.
Costs
Costs to the Respondents.
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.
it is safe and lawful for the court to find and hold that no petition was filed in accordance with the law on which to found an application.
A notice of motion is not recognised as a suit or pleading under Rule 2 of the ELRC Rules
In the absence of such a substantive petition on record, the prayers for temporary and permanent injunctions and all the others are unsupported and made in a vacuum.
The application by the Applicant dated 18th March 2026 is incompetent and is hereby dismissed.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent dates for the delegation instrument
Duplicate section numbering - two headings labelled 'V.'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government Workers Union (K), Vihiga Branch v County Public Service Board, Vihiga & 2 Others", Case Analysis (2026). Constitutional Petition No. E007 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2726/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.