Manoti v Kenya Revenue Authority; Law Society of Kenya & another (Interested Parties) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E370 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2918 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled KRA must pay a former lawyer Kshs 1.44 million in unpaid allowances, confirming public-service circulars cover lawyers in state agencies.
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 Respondent is bound by the Public Service Code of Conduct (2006)/PSC Human Resource Policy, 2016
- 2.Whether the Respondent was bound by Circulars No. MSPS.10/145A VOL.VII/40 (11th June 2010) and No. MPS.10/5A VOL.III/(78) (9th October 2012)
- 3.Whether the Claimant was entitled to the non-practice and prosecutorial allowances claimed
- 4.Whether the denial of the two allowances amounted to discrimination and unfair labour practice
Key legal issues
#Applicability of the 2010 and 2012 circulars to the KRA legal officer
The court held the circulars applied to public service legal officers, including the Claimant, and awarded the unpaid non-practising allowance
The court examined both circulars, noted the first was addressed to the Solicitor General, and relied on the ELRC decision in cause 547 of 2018 (J. Ongaya J) as upheld by the Court of Appeal in appeal E216 of 2020, which held the circulars covered all lawyers in the public service and that the successor board to the PSRRB was bound by its recommendations. Since the Respondent admitted the Claimant was its employee from 2nd April 2018 to 10th November 2020, the allowance ought to have been paid.
Entitlement to payment of the cumulative allowance
The court found that if the Claimant was entitled to non-practice allowance in the public service, the Respondent ought to have paid it during his tenure
The court noted the Claimant exited service on 10th November 2020 and filed his claim on 5th May 2021. It reasoned that had he been entitled to the allowance while working in the public service, it was within his rights to be paid and the Respondent failed to do so, justifying the award of the unpaid sum less statutory deductions, with costs and interest.
Legal principles established
#- The two public service circulars of 11th June 2010 and 9th October 2012 applied to lawyers working in the public service generally, per the Court of Appeal as adopted by this court
Court orders
#- 1.Award to the Claimant of the non-practising allowance not paid at Kshs. 1,440,000/- less statutory deductions
- 2.Respondents to pay costs of the suit
- 3.Interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court first-instance jurisdiction over the Memorandum of Claim dated 10th January 2018 (constitutional and statutory basis not expressly stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Declarations of unlawful, wrongful and unfair labour practice and discrimination
The court did not expressly grant the declaratory reliefs; it moved directly to an award of the unpaid allowance
Non-practice allowance accruing from the date of filing until payment in full
Only the cumulative sum of Kshs. 1,440,000 for the employment period was awarded
Costs
The Respondents will pay the costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment
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 therefore find for the respondent and award him his practising allowance not paid at kshs 1,440,000/less statutory deductions. The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgment.
The Court of Appeal in efect held that the 2 circulars referred to oficers working in the Public Sector.
I therefore find for the respondent and award him his practising allowance not paid at kshs 1,440,000/less statutory deductions.
Issues in the judgment
#The disposition states the court found for the respondent yet awards the allowance to the claimant, an internal contradiction
The judgment inconsistently describes the allowance awarded as 'practising allowance' although the claim was for a NON-practising allowance
The judgment references a gap in its own narrative on the history of the allowances dispute
The parties (Claimant and 1st Interested Party) are not named in the judgment text; only the Respondent (Kenya Revenue Authority) and 2nd Interested Party (SRC) are identifiable
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Manoti v Kenya Revenue Authority; Law Society of Kenya & another (Interested Parties) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E370 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2918 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (ELRC cause; Memorandum of Claim dated 10th January 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2918/eng@2025-10-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.