Yego v Nandi County Public Service Board & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E071 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2750 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nandi county employee won temporary protection: the Employment Court stopped orders demoting him until it decides who actually employs him.
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 court has jurisdiction over the dispute in the suit herein
- 2.Whether the Claimant has met the conditions for grant of the orders sought
- 3.What orders should issue
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction over the dispute
The court held it has jurisdiction to determine the application at the interim stage because the core question of the Claimant's employment status (County Executive vs County Assembly) is a matter for trial
Counsel for the 1st and 3rd Respondents objected that section 77 of the County Governments Act and related provisions required exhaustion of internal dispute resolution mechanisms. The court noted the parties disputed whether the Claimant is an employee of the County Government or the County Assembly, a matter requiring evidence at the main suit, and therefore held jurisdiction existed at the interim stage.
Whether the Claimant met the conditions for injunctive relief
The Claimant established a prima facie case and, having satisfied the first two Giella principles, was entitled to the orders sought
The Claimant exhibited promotion and redesignation letters from the County Assembly, while the Respondents exhibited documents showing he was seconded. Whether he was on secondment was a matter warranting determination in the main suit, so a genuine and arguable case was established. Having found the first two principles satisfied, the court did not need to decide balance of convenience.
Whether the Claimant was seconded or transferred to the County Assembly
Left open for determination in the main suit; disputed on the affidavits
The Claimant contended his 2017 deployment was a transfer of service, evidenced by promotions, redesignation and changed payment point, while the Respondents produced exhibits showing secondment at the request of the then Speaker. The court found this a contested factual issue reserved for trial.
Legal principles established
#- Jurisdiction must be addressed immediately whenever raised; a court without jurisdiction must down tools
- The three Giella v Cassman Brown conditions govern the grant of interlocutory injunctions
- Definition of a prima facie case in civil applications
Court orders
#- 1.A stay of execution and implementation of the directions issued by the office of the County Secretary and the clerk of the County Assembly vide the letters dated 1st August 2024 pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 2.The directives issued on 1st August 2023 by the County Secretary be stayed pending hearing and determination of the case
- 3.The Claimant be retained in his current position as Senior Clerk Assistant with all attendant tasks and benefits as of law accorded to him pending hearing and determination of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159 of the Constitution as read with section 3A & 3B of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 10 Rule 11, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
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.
In light of the foregoing I therefore, hold that the court has jurisdiction to determine the instant application at this interim stage.
I thus find that the Claimant has established a prima facie case as defined in law.
That there be and is hereby granted a stay of execution and implementation of the directions issued by the ofice of the County Secretary and the clerk of the County Assembly vide the letters dated 1st August, 2024 pending hearing and determination of the main suit.
That the Claimant be retained in his current position as the Senior Clerk Assistant and all the attendant tasks and benefits as of law be accorded to him pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the application seeks to vacate directives issued on 1st August 2023 while the stay sought (and granted) concerns letters dated 1st August 2024
Judgment text states the Claimant exhibited promotion letters 'from the position of Principal Administrative Assistant' whereas earlier paragraphs describe the prior position as Senior Office Administrator / Assistant Director Administration
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Yego v Nandi County Public Service Board & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E071 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2750 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2750/eng@2024-11-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.