Omondi & 16 others v County Government of Nakuru & another (Petition E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3698 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court struck out a petition by 17 former Nakuru county workers because they had to appeal to the Public Service Commission first.
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 Court has primary jurisdiction over the Petition given the appeal and review mechanisms under Section 77 of the County Governments Act and Sections 85-89 of the Public Service Commission Act
- 2.Whether the Petitioners' application for stay of proceedings to allow exhaustion of the Public Service Commission appeal process should be granted
- 3.Whether the preliminary objection contesting jurisdiction should be sustained
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court has primary jurisdiction over a Petition challenging termination of county public officers where the PSC appeal mechanism was not exhausted
The Court lacks primary jurisdiction; the Petitioners must first appeal to the PSC under Section 77 of the County Governments Act and Sections 85-89 of the PSC Act
Section 77 of the County Governments Act gives dissatisfied county public officers a right of appeal to the PSC, with review under Section 77(5). Sections 85-89 of the PSC Act confer appellate and review jurisdiction on the PSC, and Section 87(2) expressly bars filing of court proceedings before exhaustion. The Court's role is limited to enforcement of PSC decisions under Section 89.
Whether proceedings filed contrary to Section 87(2) can be stayed rather than struck out
No - a stay cannot issue where the Court never had jurisdiction, and Rule 56(5)(c) of the E&LRC Procedure Rules, 2024 is inconsistent with Section 87(2)
The Court reasoned that proceedings initiated contrary to a statutory prohibition confer no jurisdiction, and a stay order presupposes jurisdiction. The Rule permitting stay for non-exhaustion was characterised as an innovation attempting to broaden jurisdiction and sidestep substantive law.
Legal principles established
#- Where Section 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act prohibits filing of court proceedings before exhaustion of the PSC appeal procedure, the Court has no primary jurisdiction and cannot stay such proceedings
- Rule 56(5)(c) of the E&LRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024, permitting stay rather than striking out for non-exhaustion, is inconsistent with Section 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act
Court orders
#- 1.The application by the Petitioners for stay of the proceedings is declined
- 2.The preliminary objection is sustained and the Petition is struck out
- 3.The Petitioners shall pursue their appeal at the Public Service Commission, and may return to this Court for enforcement of the decision of the Public Service Commission
- 4.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution, contested via Section 87(2) of the Public Service Commission Act and Section 77 of the County Governments Act
Relief refused
#Application for stay of proceedings to allow exhaustion of PSC appeal process
The Court lacks primary jurisdiction; stay cannot issue where proceedings were filed contrary to a statutory prohibition
All statutory and constitutional remedies sought in the Petition (notice pay, leave pay, salary arrears, gratuity, compensation, constitutional damages, certificates of service)
Petition struck out for want of jurisdiction and non-exhaustion of the PSC dispute resolution mechanism
Costs
No order on the 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.
The preliminary objection is sustained and the Petition is struck out.
The Petitioners shall pursue their appeal at the Public Service Commission, and may return to this Court for enforcement of the decision of the Public Service Commission.
The Court cannot stay proceedings which should not have been initiated before it, in the first place.
The jurisdiction of this Court is limited to enforcement proceedings, under Section 89 of the Public Service Commission Act.
Rule 56 [5] [c] of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2024, which states that a matter may be stayed, and not struck out, for non-exhaustion of alternative dispute resolution mechanism, is inconsistent with Section 87 [2] of the Public Service Commission Act.
Issues in the judgment
#Discrepancy in the number of Petitioners between the title (17) and supporting documents (21)
The Court cited Rule 69(1) of the E&LRC Rules, 2025 but delivered the judgment under Rule 68(5) of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2024, referring to two sets of Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omondi & 16 others v County Government of Nakuru & another (Petition E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3698 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3698/eng@2025-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.