Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutPetition dated 26th September 2024

Juma & 4 others (Petitioners on their Behalf and on Behalf of 285 Other Casual Labourers at the National Police Service) v National Police Service Commission & 6 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E148 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2158 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 July 2025
HWHellen Wasilwa
6,430 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~26 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court struck out a police casual workers' petition because the 285 workers it claimed to represent were unnamed and never authorised the case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioners, casual civilian staff of the National Police Service engaged between 2018 and 2022 following approval by the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior, petitioned for declarations that their termination on 5th July 2024 and their exclusion from the recruitment of 1,070/1,045 civilian positions violated Articles 10, 41 and 232 of the Constitution and sections 37 and 45 of the Employment Act, and sought an order for fresh recruitment. The 1st and 2nd Respondents contended that the Employment Act does not apply to members of the National Police Service including civilians, that the casual engagements were void ab initio as they were made by officers without authority to recruit, that the recruitment was competitive and transparent, and that the Petitioners had no legitimate expectation of absorption. The 3rd to 5th Respondents similarly argued the petition failed the Anarita Karimi Njeru precision standard and that 91 qualified casuals were among those recruited. The court found that although the petition was filed on behalf of 285 other casual labourers, those individuals were undisclosed, unnamed and had not authorised the filing, rendering the petition defective. The court held the petition largely incompetent, found it unmerited, struck it out and made no order of costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the petition filed on behalf of 285 undisclosed casual labourers without written authorisation is competent
  2. 2.Whether the Petitioners had a legitimate expectation of absorption into permanent and pensionable terms
  3. 3.Whether the Petitioners' constitutional rights under Articles 10, 27, 41, 47 and 232 were violated
  4. 4.Whether the recruitment process for 1,045/1,070 civilian staff was fair, competitive and lawful
  5. 5.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought

Key legal issues

#
01

Competence of the representative petition

Holding

The petition was struck out because the 285 other casual labourers it purported to represent were undisclosed and gave no authority

Reasoning

The court observed that the letter to the Inspector General was signed by only three people and the names of the officers represented were not indicated. It was therefore not clear who the 285 others were, and without disclosure and authorisation the petition lacked material facts and could not proceed.

p. 13
02

Authority to recruit within the National Police Service

Holding

The court noted that appointment and termination of service in the Police Service is a preserve of the National Police Service Commission, which never participated in recruiting the Petitioners as casuals

Reasoning

The court observed that the casual engagement was initiated by the 2nd Respondent on periodic contracts, whereas the power to appoint and terminate in the Police Service rests with the 1st Respondent, which was not involved in the initial recruitment. This formed the background to the dispute but was not determinative given the striking out.

Legal principles established

#
  • A representative petition filed on behalf of undisclosed persons who have given no written authorisation is defective and incompetent

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Petition struck out
  2. 2.No order of costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

HW
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Article 165 of the Constitution (constitutional petition jurisdiction) as an employment and labour relations matter

Relief refused

#

All declaratory reliefs on violation of Article 41, fresh recruitment and absorption

The petition was incompetent because the 285 unnamed casual labourers on whose behalf it was filed were not disclosed and gave no authorisation

p. 13

Costs

There shall be no order of 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.

I will therefore find the petition is not merited and I proceed to strike it out. There shall be no order of costs.
p. 13Final orders - striking out
this petition remain largely incompetent and cannot therefore proceed.
p. 13Competence of representative petition
renders the petition defective and lacking in material facts.
p. 13Defect for lack of authorisation

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Judgment typographical inconsistency on the vacancy figure - the advertisement is described as 1070 positions yet the recruitment outcome and issues refer to 1,045

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Juma & 4 others (Petitioners on their Behalf and on Behalf of 285 Other Casual Labourers at the National Police Service) v National Police Service Commission & 6 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E148 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2158 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 26th September 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2158/eng@2025-07-23

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.