Alex & 27 others v Nairobi City County Government & 3 others (Cause E509 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1145 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Nairobi's county government wrongly fired 28 enforcement officers, and each is now owed over Kshs 226,000 plus costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Identity of the employer after expiry of the Deed of Transfer and the defunct NMS
The 1st Respondent (Nairobi City County Government) became the Claimants' employer by conduct upon expiry of the Deed of Transfer
Although the Claimants were recruited by the Public Service Commission on fixed terms tied to the NMS tenure, the 1st Respondent continued engaging their services after the Deed expired, paid their salaries, and admitted in the termination letters that their continuous engagement constituted a contract of service under the Employment Act. The statutory definitions of employer and employee under the Employment Act therefore fitted the relationship between the 1st Respondent and the Claimants.
Whether termination was unfair and unlawful
Termination was both unfair and unlawful under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
The letters of termination cited only 'expiry of contract' even though the fixed-term contracts had long expired and the relationship had evolved into an open-ended contract. The 1st Respondent led no evidence of a valid reason related to conduct, capacity, compatibility or operational requirements, and none showing that the Claimants were subjected to any fair process before termination. Both substantive justification and procedural fairness therefore failed.
Whether the Claimants suffered discrimination
The discrimination claim failed because the two groups of Enforcement Officers were not comparable
The earlier-engaged Enforcement Officers served under different terms of service from the Claimants. Applying the definition of discrimination as differential treatment without reasonable distinction, the Court found the two groups had differing terms and could not be compared, so no discrimination was established.
Whether the Claimants were entitled to absorption into the County establishment
Absorption was discretionary, not mandatory, and the declaratory reliefs were declined
Clause 3.3(b) of the Framework for Hand Over allowed absorption only subject to existing vacancies and based on County needs. There was no evidence of an express commitment to absorb the Claimants, and the Court declined to compel absorption given the unique manner in which the employment relationship arose.
Legal principles established
#- Fixed-term contracts carry no rights, obligations or expectations beyond the date of expiry
- Continued engagement of an employee by an employer after expiry of a fixed-term contract, coupled with payment of salaries and admission of a contract of service, implies an open-ended contract of service with the continuing employer
- An employer must prove both substantive justification and procedural fairness for termination under Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the 28 Claimants against the 1st Respondent
- 2.Each Claimant awarded one (1) month's salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 45,270.00
- 3.Each Claimant awarded compensatory damages of Kshs 181,080.00, being four (4) months' salary
- 4.Total award of Kshs 226,350.00 per Claimant
- 5.Interest on the total award at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 6.The 1st Respondent to bear the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (employment and labour relations disputes)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Alex & 27 others v Nairobi City County Government & 3 others (Cause E509 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1145 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1145/eng@2025-04-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.