Kenya County Government Workers Union v Kericho Water and Sanitation Company Limited (Cause E012 of 2005) [2025] KEELRC 1863 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 legal capacity to institute the Claim on behalf of its members
- 2.Whether the Court has pecuniary jurisdiction over the dispute given the Employees' salaries
- 3.Whether an interlocutory injunction should issue restraining the Respondent from filling the positions of the dismissed Employees
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction over the Claim
The objection on pecuniary jurisdiction was rejected; the matter is a labour relations dispute properly before the E&LRC
The Claim originates in a trade dispute involving strike action and a return-to-work formula. Because it is presented by a trade union on behalf of its members, it falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the E&LRC under Section 12(1)(b) of the E&LRC Act, and not within the pecuniary jurisdiction limits governing employment claims at the Chief Magistrate's Court.
Whether to grant the interlocutory injunction
The application for an interlocutory restraint was declined
The Claimant gave no good reason to restrain recruitment into positions tied to essential services, supplied no evidence of the positions held or that recruitment had commenced, and adequate remedies including compensation, damages and reinstatement are available in the substantive Claim. The Court cautioned that recruitment would not defeat reinstatement if the Claim succeeds.
Legal principles established
#- A labour relations dispute presented by a trade union on behalf of its members is properly before the E&LRC irrespective of pecuniary jurisdiction limits applying to employment disputes at the Chief Magistrate's Court
- Filling the positions of dismissed Employees does not by itself render reinstatement unobtainable
- Dismissal of trade union officials for engaging in legitimate trade union activities, including lawful strikes, amounts to unfair dismissal
Court orders
#- 1.The application filed by the Claimant dated 25th March 2025 is declined
- 2.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(1)(b) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Interlocutory injunction restraining the Respondent from filling the dismissed Employees' positions
No evidence that the Respondent had commenced filling the positions; adequate remedies exist in the substantive Claim including reinstatement and compensation
Costs
No order on the 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 Court rejects the objection raised by the Respondent on its jurisdiction.
A bloated county public service, will not be a reasonable ground to bar granting an order of reinstatement, if the evidence marshalled by the Claimant, and the applicable law, supports its award.
The application filed by the Claimant dated 25th March 2025is declined.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya County Government Workers Union v Kericho Water and Sanitation Company Limited (Cause E012 of 2005) [2025] KEELRC 1863 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Claim dated on or before 25th March 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1863/eng@2025-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.