Kenya County Government Workers Union v County Government of Kitui & another (Constitutional Petition E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3735 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's employment court ruled that county governments cannot cut teachers' salaries without consent, even when following SRC advice, and must pay back the difference.
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 actions, conduct and/or decisions with regards to the unilateral deduction or variation of the Petitioners' members' salaries and the stoppage of payment of salaries of other members of the Petitioner are lawful and justified
- 2.Whether the Respondents are culpable for unfair termination of the ECDE teachers
- 3.Whether the Petitioner has proved its case to the required standard and hence entitled to the orders sought in the petition
Key legal issues
#Whether reliance on SRC advice justified the unilateral reduction of the members' salaries
The unilateral reduction was unlawful; SRC advice does not authorise a pay cut effected without consultation and consent of the employees, offending section 10(5) of the Employment Act and Article 41
The court accepted that SRC advice is binding on county governments on remuneration matters. However, a contract of employment binds only the employer and the employee; the SRC is a third party. The employer was obliged to comply with section 10(5) of the Employment Act, which requires consultation with the employee and written notification before any variation. Reducing salary without consent took away vested rights and breached Article 41 fair labour practices.
Whether section 19 of the Employment Act authorised the salary deduction
No; section 19 prescribes specific permissible deductions and does not permit unilateral reduction of payable salary; the pay cut was a breach of contract
The court examined the exhaustive list of deductible amounts under section 19 and found none authorises unilateral salary reduction. What the Respondents did was not a deduction but a reduction of wages, which breached the contracts and took away vested rights, offending the constitutional guarantee of fair labour practices under Article 41.
Whether the 9 dismissed long-serving ECDE teachers were unfairly terminated
The claim raised no constitutional issue and was referred to the Public Service Commission
The court reviewed the unfair termination claims of the 9 members and found they did not disclose a constitutional question, dismissing them from the petition while directing the members to pursue the claim before the Public Service Commission, which has statutory mandate under section 77 of the County Governments Act, with liberty to file an appeal under PSC rules.
Legal principles established
#- The advice of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission on remuneration of public officers is binding on national and county governments
- A contract of employment binds only the employer and employee; an employee's salary cannot be reduced without consent and compliance with section 10(5) of the Employment Act, even on the strength of an SRC circular
- Section 19 deductions under the Employment Act are not equivalent to a unilateral reduction of salary; a unilateral pay reduction breaches contract and Article 41 fair labour practices
- Claims concerning dismissal of county public officers may be referred to the Public Service Commission where no constitutional issue is raised
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the terms of offer of appointment contained in the Petitioner's members' letters of appointment and terms of engagement before 30th June 2023 are the proper and conclusive terms of the employment contract regulating the employment relationship
- 2.A declaration that the Respondents' decision to unilaterally, arbitrarily and unlawfully vary and/or reduce the Petitioner's members' salaries is unlawful, unfair, and violates Articles 27, 28, 41 and 47 of the Constitution and Sections 10, 13 and 26 of the Employment Act
- 3.A declaration that the Respondents have violated Sections 10(5), 13(1) and 26 of the Employment Act 2007, the Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order 2022, and Section 138(a) of the County Governments Act by unilaterally and arbitrarily altering the terms and conditions of service of ECDE teachers in Kitui County to their disadvantage
- 4.A declaration that the 2nd Respondent's reduction in the salaries of the Petitioner's members amounts to an unlawful and unfair constructive dismissal
- 5.A conservatory order restraining the Respondents from varying the terms of engagement of the Petitioner's members' terms of service to their disadvantage and detriment
- 6.A mandatory order compelling the Respondents to compensate the affected members by paying in full the unlawfully varied/reduced salaries from 1st July 2023 to date, as long as the members are in service
- 7.A declaration that the 2nd Respondent's directive to unilaterally vary/alter the salaries of the Petitioner's members constitutes a breach of the affected members' contracts of employment
- 8.The claims for 9 members on the grounds of unfair dismissal are held not to meet constitutional threshold and are referred to the Public Service Commission for hearing and determination
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution read with Sections 10, 13, 26, 41 and 45 of the Employment Act 2007 and Section 138 of the County Governments Act
Relief refused
#Claim of unfair dismissal/stoppage of salaries by the 9 long-serving members (fees (i) and (j) of the petition)
The court found no constitutional issue in those claims, holding they fall under the Public Service Commission's statutory mandate
Costs of the petition against the Respondents
The court made no order as to costs
Costs
No order as to costs; each party to bear their own costs in the petition.
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 court holds that the unilateral issuance of new contracts to reduce salary of the petitioners was illegal for offending section 10(5) of the Employment Act and in violation of fair labour practice under article 41 of the constitution.
The employee's salary cannot be reduced without the employee's consent and in compliance with section 10 of the Employment Act.
In conclusion, the court makes the following orders in the petition –
The court makes no order as to costs in the petition. Each party to bear own costs in the petition.
The claims for 9 members on the grounds of unfair dismissal is held not to meet constitutional threshold and is referred to Public Service Commission for hearing and determination.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the Respondents' County as both Kitui and Machakos within the Petitioner's submissions, and mislabels the Petitioner as 'appellant' in the decision section
The court refers to an 'interim decision by Ongaya J' but the interim ruling is not part of this judgment or otherwise identified
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya County Government Workers Union v County Government of Kitui & another (Constitutional Petition E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3735 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 3rd September 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3735/eng@2025-12-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.