Chirchir & 39 others v West Pokot County Government & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E001 & E002 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 1981 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court allowed 40 dismissed West Pokot workers' case to proceed but refused to jail county officials over unpaid salaries.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether section 77 of the County Governments Act ousts the jurisdiction of this Court to determine the suit herein / whether the Court should exercise first-instance jurisdiction where statutory remedies before the Public Service Commission were not exhausted
- 2.Whether the jurisdiction of this Court has been prematurely invoked
- 3.Whether the 1st and 2nd Contemnors are in contempt of the orders of this court
Key legal issues
#Whether Section 77 of the County Governments Act ousts the Court's jurisdiction for non-exhaustion of remedies before the Public Service Commission
No - the preliminary objection is dismissed; the case falls within the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine
The court held that on the face of the pleadings, unrebuted by any response, the Public Service Commission may not be the most appropriate forum for the claim founded on discrimination and constitutional violations. Further, the Claimants approached the court under threat of termination needing urgent ex parte intervention, a relief the PSC's regulations under the Public Service Commission (County Appeals Procedures) Regulations 2022 do not provide for. Applying Fleur Investments, the court found arbitrariness and urgency brought the case within the exceptions to exhaustion.
Whether the 1st and 2nd Contemnors are in contempt of court orders
No - the contempt application was not proved to the standard required and is dismissed with no order as to costs
Applying the test in Samuel M. N. Mweru v National Land Commission, the applicant must prove the terms of the order, knowledge, breach and deliberateness. The Contemnors averred compliance except payment of salaries, which they contended was legally impossible without budgetary appropriation. Since contempt may result in denial of liberty, non-payment could not be attributed personally to the officeholders, and no evidence showed recruitment was not suspended nor rebutted deployment of the Claimants.
Legal principles established
#- Where a suit seeks to enforce fundamental rights and the constitutional violations are not mere bootstraps, it is not barred by the doctrine of exhaustion; the court may intervene in exceptional circumstances including where arbitrariness or breach of natural justice is manifest
- Elements of civil contempt: the applicant must prove the terms of the order, knowledge of the terms by the respondent, and failure to comply; willfulness and bad faith are then inferred but may be rebutted
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondents' Preliminary Objection dated 18th March 2023 is dismissed
- 2.The decision on the preliminary objection applies equally to the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 20th January 2025 filed by the County Solicitor, County Government of West Pokot
- 3.The Claimants' Notice of Motion dated 3rd June 2024 (contempt application) is dismissed
- 4.Both the notice of preliminary objection and the contempt application are dismissed with no orders for costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court; objection that Section 77 of the County Governments Act ousts the Court's jurisdiction in favour of the Public Service Commission was rejected
- Consolidated with
- Cause No. E001 of 2023 (this cause was ordered consolidated and to proceed under cause number E001 of 2023)
Relief refused
#Committal of the 1st Contemnor, Jonathan Siwanyang, to civil jail for up to six months for contempt
The contempt application was not proved to the required standard; non-payment of salaries could not be attributed personally to the Contemnors by virtue of the offices they hold
Committal of the 2nd Contemnor, Consolata C. Arusei, to civil jail for up to six months for contempt
No evidence tendered that recruitment was not suspended as ordered; Claimants did not rebut averments of deployment and allocation of duties
Striking out of the Statement of Claim dated 7th February 2023
The preliminary objection on exhaustion of remedies failed because the case fits within the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine
Costs
Both the notice of preliminary objection and the contempt application are dismissed with no orders for 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.
It is for these reasons that I find the preliminary objection filed by the Respondents herein to be without merit and dismiss the same.
In conclusion, both the notice of preliminary objection and the contempt application are dismissed with no orders for costs.
It is my considered view based on the foregoing analysis and findings that the contempt of Court application herein has not been proved to the standard required based on the law and judicial pronouncements. I accordingly dismiss the application dated 3rd June 2024 with no order as to costs.
on the face of the suit as filed in court and without the benefit of a response from the Respondents to rebut the averments therein, it is the view of this court that the Public Service Commission may not be the most appropriate forum for adjudication of the claim
Issues in the judgment
#The cause number of this suit is never expressly stated; the only numbered cause mentioned is E001 of 2023 (into which this cause was consolidated), so the case number is inferred.
The ruling on the preliminary objection dated 18th March 2023 refers to submissions dated 4th January 2024, a date preceding the preliminary objection itself by over two months, suggesting a typographical error.
The 1st Contemnor's replying affidavit is recorded as referring to compliance with 'orders of 28th May, 2028', an apparent typographical error for 28th May 2024.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chirchir & 39 others v West Pokot County Government & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E001 & E002 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 1981 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause E001 of 2023 (consolidated; the ruling also applies to a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 20th January 2025 by the County Solicitor). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1981/eng@2025-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.