Kenya Union of Pre-Primary Education Teachers v Meru County Public Service Board & another; Salaries and Remuneration Commission & another (Interested Parties) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E014 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1975 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Meru County must pay its ECDE teachers salaries and allowances set by the SRC, plus arrears, after a court ruled SRC pay advice binds counties.
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 lacks the locus standi to bring this suit on behalf of the grievants for want of a recognition agreement
- 2.Whether the suit is prematurely before the Court for failure to exhaust internal mechanism
- 3.Whether the respondents are bound to pay their ECDE teachers the remuneration and allowances as per the SRC advice conveyed vide the letter Ref: NO. SRC/TS/29(81) dated 10th August 2023
- 4.Whether the respondents are bound to pay the ECDE teachers 10% salary increment awarded by the President during labour day celebrations on 1st May 2023
- 5.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Locus standi of a trade union without a recognition agreement
The claimant has locus standi to sue on behalf of its members; a recognition agreement is not required for court representation
Relying on Modern Soap Factory v Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union, the court held that a recognition agreement is a bilateral workplace engagement tool, not the basis of a union's right to represent members in court; membership is a question of fact. The claimant's members were identified as grievants, so the objection under Article 41 and Article 258 fails.
Prematurity/exhaustion of internal mechanisms
The suit is properly before the court; the PSC had declined jurisdiction over the appeal and the claim invokes constitutionally protected labour rights
The claimant's PSC appeal was struck out for want of a decision by the CPSB. The court found it had unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) and 165(5) read with section 12 of the ELRC Act over rights under Article 41 and section 38 of the ECDE Act, and cannot fold its hands when administrative organs fail to perform statutory functions.
Binding nature of SRC remuneration advice
The SRC advice dated 10th August 2023 is binding on the respondents and must be implemented with or without a CBA, effective 1st July 2023
Following TSC v KNUT (Court of Appeal) as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Muthuuri, advice under Article 230(4)(b) is binding on county governments. The SRC itself pleaded and confirmed by letter dated 22nd September 2023 that the circular applies to ECDE teachers, including Meru County, superseding previous advice.
10% presidential salary increment
Claim rejected; no legal basis for the President to determine salaries of public officers
The claimant produced no documentary evidence of the presidential declaration. Even if made, salary determination for public officers is constitutionally vested in the SRC under Article 230 and the SRC Act, so the announcement had no legal effect on the grievants' pay.
Orders against interested parties
No orders made against the interested parties since they were not joined as defendants
The court held that a claimant seeking a decree against a person or entity must join that party as a defendant; an interested party cannot bear direct liability. The declarations sought against SRC and PSC for failure of mandate therefore could not issue.
Legal principles established
#- Advice of the SRC under Article 230(4)(b) on remuneration and benefits for public officers is binding on national and county governments; exercise of power without such advice is invalid
- A trade union has locus standi to sue on behalf of its members without a recognition agreement; recognition agreement and court representation are distinct roles
- An adverse inference may be drawn against a party that withholds documents in its custody
Court orders
#- 1.The respondents be and are hereby ordered to fully implement the SRC advice conveyed vide the letter Ref: NO. SRC/TS/29/81 dated 10th August 2023 by paying the ECDE teachers the salaries and allowances as per the structure therein
- 2.The respondents are further ordered to pay the grievants salary arrears, if any, that have accrued from the effective date
- 3.Declaration be and is hereby made that the grievants are entitled to annual leave
- 4.The claimant is awarded costs of the suit plus interest to be paid by the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) and 165(5) of the Constitution read with section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Payment of pro-rated annual leave from August 2016 to date
The claim lacked particulars and supporting evidence
10% salary increase with effect from 1st July 2023 announced by the President
No documentary evidence and no legal basis for the Head of State to determine salaries of public officers; that power vests in SRC under Article 230
Declarations against the SRC and PSC (failure of mandate)
The interested parties were not joined as defendants and no direct orders may issue against interested parties
Costs
The claimant is awarded costs of the suit plus interest to be paid by the respondents.
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 respondents be and are hereby ordered to fully implement the SRC advice conveyed vide the letter Ref: NO. SRC/TS/29/81 dated 10th August 2023 by paying the ECDE teachers the salaries and allowances as per the structure therein. The respondents are further ordered to pay the grievants salary arrears, if any, that have accrued from the effective date.
Declaration be and is hereby made that the grievants are entitled to annual leave.
The claimant is awarded costs of the suit plus interest to be paid by the respondents.
The said advice is not a mere suggestion but it is automatically binding and must be complied with by the respondents with or without any collective bargaining agreement.
A recognition agreement is not the basis upon which the trade union represents its members in court
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently states which respondent filed a response, saying the 1st respondent never filed a response but then referring to the SRC (1st interested party) as 'the 1st respondent' filing a statement of response
The judgment states the claimant 'never challenged the decision by the SRC' where the decision was by the PSC
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Pre-Primary Education Teachers v Meru County Public Service Board & another; Salaries and Remuneration Commission & another (Interested Parties) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E014 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1975 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (ELRC claim, statement of claim dated 17th May 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1975/eng@2025-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.