Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists and Dentists’ Union v County Government of Kiambu & another (Petition E174 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1518 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kiambu County healthcare workers won an order that their delayed salaries be paid and that they cannot be disciplined for absences caused by that delay.
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 Respondents' delay in remitting August and September 2024 salaries violated the Petitioner's members' rights to fair remuneration and reasonable working conditions under Article 41(2)(a) & (b) of the Constitution
- 2.Whether the delay violated the members' economic and social rights under Article 43 of the Constitution
- 3.Whether the delay contravened Section 18(2)(b) of the Employment & Labour Relations Act and Article D.1.0(2) of the Kiambu County HR Policies and Procedures Manual
- 4.Whether the show cause letters dated 27th September 2024 and actions taken thereunder should be quashed
- 5.Whether the Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the Respondents' internal disciplinary process
Key legal issues
#Whether the delayed payment of salaries amounted to a breach by the Respondents
The Respondents admitted non-payment of salaries on time, attributing it to late or non-disbursement of funds from the National Treasury; the Court held this was an admitted breach which the Respondents must make good
The Court noted the Respondents' own pleadings and submissions admitted arrangements for payment of August salaries on 27th September 2024, September salaries on 23rd October 2024 and October salaries on 19th November 2024. The members continued working and were not on industrial action. The admission of late payment therefore established the breach regardless of the cause, and the Respondents were directed to pay the salaries owing.
Whether the Petitioner's members should face disciplinary action for absence from duty during the salary delay
Since the absence was a direct consequence of the Respondents' admitted failure to pay salaries, the members should not be victimized and any pending disciplinary action based on the petition should be stayed
The Court balanced the interests of both parties: to maintain good working conditions, the members must continue executing their duties and refrain from unlawful industrial action, while the Respondents must pay the salaries owing and must not victimize the members for absence attributable to non-payment. The Court fashioned a stay of the disciplinary process rather than the quashing orders sought.
Legal principles established
#- An employer who admits failure to pay salaries on time is in breach which it must make good, and employees should not be victimized for absence from duty occasioned by that failure
- Pending disciplinary action founded on absence from duty caused by the employer's admitted failure to pay salaries should be stayed
Court orders
#- 1.That the Respondents should pay salaries owing to the Petitioner's members
- 2.That the Petitioner's members should continue to execute their duties and should not be victimized for alleged absence from duty
- 3.That the Petitioner's members should not participate in any unlawful industrial action
- 4.That any pending purported disciplinary action against the Petitioner's members based on this petition should be stayed forthwith
- 5.That there shall be no order of costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 41(2)(a) & (b) and Article 43 of the Constitution, as read with Section 18(2)(b) of the Employment & Labour Relations Act and Article D.1.0(2) of the County Government of Kiambu Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual
Relief refused
#Declarations that the delay in remitting salaries violated Articles 41(2)(a)&(b), 43 of the Constitution, Section 18(2)(b) of the Employment & Labour Relations Act and Article D.1.0(2) of the HR Manual
The Court found the Respondents admitted the breach and directed payment, but did not grant the formal declarations sought
Quashing of the show cause letters dated 27th September 2024 and all actions taken pursuant thereto
The Court instead stayed the pending disciplinary action rather than quashing the letters
Costs of the Petition
The Court declined to award costs to the Petitioner
Costs
There shall be no order of costs - each party to bear their 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.
This implies that the Respondents admit breach which they must make good.
The Petitioners on their part should continue to execute their duties and should not be victimized for what the Respondents aver as absence from duty in the face of an admission of the Respondents in failing to pay them salaries.
In order to maintain a semblance of a good working condition, I would direct that the Respondents should pay salaries owing to the Petitioners and the Petitioners should not participate in any unlawful industrial action.
Any pending purported disciplinary action against the Petitioners’ members based on this petition should be stayed forthwith.
There shall be no order of costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The case title and case number are not expressly stated in the judgment; only the date of the Petition (18th October 2024) is given, and the formal name of the Petitioner union and the individual Respondents are never printed
The judgment does not state which party is the 1st or 2nd Respondent despite referring to them by number
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists and Dentists’ Union v County Government of Kiambu & another (Petition E174 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1518 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 18th October 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1518/eng@2025-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.