Mohamed v Wajir County Assembly & 2 others (Petition E088 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2562 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An unopposed Kenyan employment petition still failed because the worker's own facts contradicted each other — proof matters even when nobody defends the case.
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 Respondents' decision to alter the Petitioner's terms of employment and place her on contract was procedural and/or constitutional
- 2.Whether the Petitioner was lawfully removed from the payroll of the 1st Respondent and/or terminated
- 3.Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the orders sought
- 4.Costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioner proved her claim of unlawful variation of employment terms and constructive dismissal
Petition dismissed because the factual narrative was internally inconsistent and not established
The Petitioner pleaded employment from 2nd October 2017 on permanent and pensionable terms, yet at another point indicated she was employed in 2023 with a letter backdated to 2022. The court found the facts did not flow and could not reconcile how she could be employed in 2023 yet unpaid since 2017. Even though unopposed, the petition failed for want of factual precision.
Legal principles established
#- A petition, even unopposed, must be established on facts that flow with precision; the court will not grant relief on an internally inconsistent factual narrative.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 41(1) and Article 47(1) of the Constitution; Employment Act (employment and labour relations jurisdiction over county government employers)
Relief refused
#Declaration of legitimate expectation to admission to permanent and pensionable scheme
Petition lacked factual precision and was not established
Declaration that the letter dated 25th September 2017 putting the Petitioner on a five-year contract was null and void
Petition dismissed for lack of factual precision
Declarations that removal from payroll, denial of access to workplace and withholding of salary were unlawful and unconstitutional
Petition dismissed for lack of factual precision
Reinstatement without loss of benefits and payment of pending dues
Reinstatement follows the main declarations; petition failed on its facts
Costs paid by Respondents
Court made no order of costs
Costs
There are 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 believe the facts of his petition do not fiow. iI is not clear how the petitioner was employed in 2023 and has never been paid since 2017.
The petition as submitted and as presented before court though not opposed by the respondents lacks factual precision and is therefore not established.
The petition is therefore dismissed accordingly.
There are no order of costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Petition pleads contradictory employment dates (employed 2nd October 2017 vs employed 2023), which the court noted as fatal
Judgment states the letter altering terms was 'dated 25th September 2017' in the reliefs but pleaded as 'backdated to 25th September 2022' in the body
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mohamed v Wajir County Assembly & 2 others (Petition E088 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2562 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Petition (Wajir), Petition dated 5th December 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2562/eng@2025-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.