Kenya County Government Workers Union v County Government of Kiambu & 6 others (Cause E234 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1778 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court refused to block Kiambu County from hiring new workers, stressing that unions must try conciliation and act promptly before seeking emergency court orders.
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 Claimant has a prima facie Case?
- 2.Whether the Claimant will suffer irreparable harm?
- 3.Whether the Claimant has established a balance of convenience?
Key legal issues
#Whether the Union demonstrated a prima facie case, irreparable harm and balance of convenience to justify a temporary injunction and stay of dismissals
The Motion was found without merit and dismissed.
The court noted the absence of an affidavit of service on the 1st to 6th Respondents, that the ex-parte orders (ii) and (iv) had become spent, that the members were dismissed over two years earlier making a stay imprudent, and that granting the stay would amount to micromanaging the Respondents' human resource functions. The Union also failed to show any attempt at conciliation under Part VIII of the Labour Relations Act.
Whether ex-parte interlocutory orders remain live after the ex-parte stage
Proposed orders (ii) and (iv), which sought ex-parte orders, became spent when not granted at the ex-parte hearing stage and were overtaken by events.
The court held that orders not granted at the ex-parte stage cannot be revived at the inter partes hearing; they are overtaken by events and need not be considered on the merits.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not, at an interlocutory stage and without a hearing on the merits, stay dismissals that occurred long ago, as this would interfere with the employer's human resource managerial prerogative
- A party seeking interlocutory relief must demonstrate that it attempted to have the dispute resolved through the conciliation mechanisms under Part VIII of the Labour Relations Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated and filed in Court on 25 March 2025 is found without merit and dismissed with no order on costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; employment and labour relations dispute before the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction prohibiting the 1st to 6th Respondents from interviewing, recruiting or employing replacement labour pending hearing and determination of the application and the Claim
No affidavit of service against the 1st to 6th Respondents; the ex-parte orders had become spent; and the court would not interfere with the Respondents' managerial prerogative at an interlocutory stage
Orders staying the termination/dismissal of the Claimant's members
The dismissals occurred in 2022, over two years earlier, and it would not be legally prudent to stay them now
Costs of the application
Motion dismissed with no order on costs
Costs
No order on costs - the Motion was dismissed with no order on 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.
The Motion dated and filed in Court on 25 March 2025 is found without merit, and it dismissed with no order on costs.
It would not be legally prudent for the Court to stay the dismissals now.
staying the dismissals which apparently occurred over 2 years ago at an interlocutory stage without a hearing on the merits would amount to the Court micromanaging the Respondents and interfering with their human resource managerial prerogative.
the Union has not demonstrated that it attempted to have the dispute resolved as contemplated by Part VIII of the Labour Relations Act, which provides for the conciliation of trade disputes.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records the issues the Union set out but the actual list of issues is introduced and then interleaved with the paragraph on the Respondents' failure to file responses, obscuring the fourth and fifth determinations numbering
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya County Government Workers Union v County Government of Kiambu & 6 others (Cause E234 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1778 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1778/eng@2025-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.