Kenya National Union of Nurses v Nakuru Public Service Board [2020] KEELRC 1081 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court ruled that nurses who finished internships in Nakuru were never employees on permanent terms, so their claim for reinstatement failed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.The nature of relationship between the parties
- 2.Whether the remedies sought should issue
Key legal issues
#Whether the grievants were employees of the respondent on permanent and pensionable terms
The grievants were interns engaged by the national government for one year; the internship lapsed and continued service was not regularised, so no employment relationship on permanent terms existed
The appointment letter of 12th April 2013 expressly stated that internship did not guarantee regular appointment, which would depend on competitive filling of vacancies. Payment of wages after the internship ended did not regularise the engagement. Section 66 of the County Governments Act required advertisement and competitive recruitment before any public office could be filled, which was not done for the grievants.
Whether reinstatement and related remedies should issue
Reinstatement and payment of back salaries, allowances or damages were refused as there was no foundation for the claim
Reinstatement presupposes an existing employment relationship, which the court found did not exist. The respondent followed competitive recruitment: vacancies were advertised, grievants were interviewed, 8 were offered 3-year renewable contracts, but only one accepted. The respondent had no obligation to retain those who declined or to employ the 3 who failed to qualify.
Legal principles established
#- Employment in a county public service can only be offered after public notification, competitive sourcing and based on need under section 66 of the County Governments Act
- An intern whose internship term lapses has no legitimate expectation of permanent employment; continued service without regularisation does not create employment
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Each party shall bear own costs
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 and Labour Relations Act over employment disputes; claim under sections 5, 41 and 43 of the Employment Act, 2007 and sections 57, 66, 72 and 74 of the County Governments Act
Relief refused
#Reinstatement of the grievants and deployment without loss of benefits and payment of accrued salaries and allowances
The grievants were interns whose internship lapsed; there was no employment relationship to reinstate, and recruitment must be by competitive process under section 66 of the County Governments Act
Payment in accordance with the agreement of 5th March 2018
The respondent denied being party to the 5th March 2018 meeting and the claimant's case on the agreement was not established
Declaration that termination was null and void, damages for unfair termination, and orders on bank loans and salary arrears
There was no unfair termination as no employment on permanent and pensionable terms ever existed; dues for time served as interns were paid
Costs
Each party shall bear own costs
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.
Accordingly, the claim is hereby dismissed in its entirety save each party shall bear own costs.
The respondent bound by statute to employment and deploy officers in the service of the County Government cannot issue any letters of employment or offer employment unless and until there is public notification, competitive sourcing and based on the need.
It is further clarified that your appointment as a Nursing Officer intern does not guarantee you appointment in the regular establishment on the completion of the internship as this will depend on the existence of substantive vacancies which will be filled on a competitive basis.
For time served as interns, all dues were paid. The expectation for employment on permanent and pensionable terms has no foundation or basis in light of the analysis above.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the number of grievants offered letters and the list of names: the claim alleges 8 named grievants under the 5th March 2018 agreement, while the respondent says 8 qualified grievants were issued letters and lists 8 names including two (Cecilia Wairimu Ngari and Nabwire Adelight) not named in the claimant's list, and the two lists differ
The judgment inconsistently refers to the number of grievants offered employment declining, first as seven and elsewhere only one accepted
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya National Union of Nurses v Nakuru Public Service Board [2020] KEELRC 1081 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No. 364 of 2017 (formerly Nairobi Cause No. 1113 of 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1081/eng@2020-04-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.