Leleruk & 41 others v Isiolo County Government & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E010 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 98 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that long-serving casual county workers are automatically entitled to permanent monthly pay, salary arrears and full staff benefits.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether petition is premature and the Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the same.
- 2.Whether the petition meets competence threshold.
- 3.Whether the Petitioners converted from casual to permanent employees.
- 4.Whether the respondents violated the Petitioners’ constitutional rights and freedoms.
- 5.Whether the reliefs sought by the petitioners are merited.
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction premised on non-exhaustion of PSC appeal mechanism
The Court has jurisdiction because the dispute was an unresolved trade dispute referred for conciliation under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act, and section 73(1) entitles a party to refer it to the Industrial Court; sections 77 of the County Governments Act and 87(2) of the PSC Act did not oust this jurisdiction. The PSC's remedies are also too narrow for the relief sought.
The Court accepted that section 77 of the County Governments Act and section 87(2) of the PSC Act ordinarily postpone court jurisdiction until the PSC appeal is exhausted. However, the dispute had already been subjected to conciliation under the Labour Relations Act and remained unresolved, activating section 73(1). The Court also found the PSC's remedial powers under Regulation 21 of the PSC (County Appeals Procedures) Regulations 2022 too narrow to grant declarations, conversion of terms and constitutional compensation, so it was better placed to hear the matter.
Competence of the constitutional petition
The petition met the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold as it pleaded with reasonable precision the constitutional provisions violated and the manner of violation, and the respondents were able to respond.
Applying the Anarita Karimi Njeru standard, the Court found paragraphs 23 to 33 of the petition identified Articles 27, 28 and 41 and described the violations (discrimination, inhuman treatment, unfair labour practices through delayed salaries and prolonged casual employment). The respondents were able to reply in paragraphs 9 to 14 of the Replying Affidavit, confirming the petition was pleaded with sufficient precision and should be determined on the merits.
Conversion from casual employment
Except as noted, the petitioners' casual contracts automatically converted to monthly-paid contracts by operation of section 37(1) of the Employment Act after continuous service beyond the statutory thresholds; appointment letters for three months that lapsed without renewal, with continued service, triggered the conversion.
The petitioners produced appointment letters dated 8/3/2018 engaging them as casuals for three months; no further letters issued, yet they continued working for years, with recommendation letters showing service of up to eight years. Applying section 37(1), continuous service beyond the statutory period deemed the contracts monthly-paid, and section 35(1)(c) protections applied. Shukri Galgalo produced only a recommendation letter showing service from 1/1/2015.
Violation of constitutional rights
The respondents violated the petitioners' rights to fair labour practices, human dignity, equality and freedom from discrimination under Articles 41, 27 and 28 by delaying salaries and maintaining them as casuals for over five years while paying comparable permanent staff differently.
The respondents admitted the delayed salaries and continued casual engagement but blamed delayed fund allocation. The Court found delay contravened section 18 of the Employment Act, continued casual engagement contravened section 37(1), and unequal remuneration for work of equal value contravened section 5(5)-(7), which also shifts the burden of proof to the employer. Reliance was placed on Humphrey Nyaga Thomas v Kenyatta University and Kenya County Government Workers' Union v County Government of Nyeri; the respondents' explanation was rejected.
Legal principles established
#- Section 77 of the County Governments Act read with section 87(2) of the PSC Act postpones, but does not oust, the Court's jurisdiction until the PSC appeal mechanism is exhausted; however, where the dispute is an unresolved trade dispute under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act, section 73(1) confers jurisdiction on the ELRC.
- Under section 37(1) of the Employment Act, a casual employee who works for the equivalent of not less than one month, or performs work not reasonably expected to be completed within three months, is deemed converted to a monthly-paid contract.
- A fixed term contract which expires and continues without renewal becomes a month to month contract governed by the Employment Act.
- Casual employment in the public service for prolonged periods, with discriminatory denial of benefits enjoyed by comparable permanent staff, violates Articles 27, 28 and 41 of the Constitution.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the respondents violated the petitioners' constitutional rights to fair labour practices, human dignity and freedom from discrimination contrary to Articles 27, 28 and 41 of the Constitution
- 2.A declaration that the petitioners' contracts of service as casual employees automatically converted to contracts of service for payment of monthly salary under section 37(1) of the Employment Act and section 35(1)(c) applies
- 3.An order of mandatory injunction requiring the respondents to forthwith pay the petitioners all their salary arrears up to date
- 4.Variation of the petitioners' terms of service from casual terms and declaration that they are employed on terms and conditions of service consistent with the Employment Act, not less favourable than colleagues on permanent and pensionable terms
- 5.Direction to the respondents to issue the petitioners with necessary appointment letters and add them to the County Government Payroll forthwith
- 6.Costs of the suit to the petitioners plus interest at court rate from the date of filing
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 162(2) and 165(2)(b) of the Constitution; sections 12 of the ELRC Act and 73(1) of the Labour Relations Act
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.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence.
It follows that the petition is competently before the court as section 77 of the County Government Act and section 87 of the PSC Act have not repealed, ousted, or postponed the jurisdiction donated to the court by section 73 of the Labour Relations Act.
A declaration be and hereby made that the petitioners' contract of service as casual employees have automatically converted to contracts of service for payment of monthly salary by dint of section 37(1) of the Employment Act and section 35(1) (c) of the Act applies to them.
An order of mandatory injunction be and is hereby issued requiring the respondents to forthwith pay the petitioners all their salary arrears up to date.
Pursuant to section 37 (4) of the Employment Act, I hereby vary the terms of service of the of the petitioners from casual terms and declare that they are employed on terms and conditions of service consistent with the Employment Act.
Finally, I award the petitioners costs of the suit plus interest at court rate from the date of filing the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the petition's case number on its face; the case number is only described as an 'Amended petition dated 25th September 2024'.
Internal inconsistency on the expiry date of the three-month appointment: letters dated 8/3/2018 appointing from 1/3/2018 for three months, but the judgment says the period expired on 31st March 2015.
The respondents are not named with individual descriptions in the extract; the deponent Dadhe Boru is described as County Secretary but his exact respondent designation (e.g. 1st or 2nd respondent) is inconsistently referenced.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Leleruk & 41 others v Isiolo County Government & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E010 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 98 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition (Amended) dated 25th September 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/98/eng@2025-01-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.