Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedELRC Cause No. E060 of 2025

Embu County Government v Kenya Union of Clinical Officers & 7 others

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 September 2026
SRStella Rutto
4,825 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court declared health workers' strike illegal because unions skipped the required statutory notice and conciliation steps, but stopped short of banning strikes outright.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Embu County Government sued eight unions in the ELRC at Nyeri, seeking declarations that an intended strike was illegal and unprotected and that the unions' members, being health-sector and other essential services employees, were barred from striking under Section 81(3) of the Labour Relations Act, plus an order compelling resumption of work. Six unions settled by consent adopted on 17th February 2026; the case proceeded against the 1st and 3rd Respondents on documentary evidence. The unions maintained the strike was protected, having complied with Section 76 notice requirements, and was a lawful exercise of the Article 41(2)(d) right to strike after the Claimant failed to implement the Bipartisan Agreement. The Court held that although the initial 14-day notice was valid, once 10 of 12 issues were resolved and the strike suspended, that notice was spent; the press statement of 29th November 2025 announcing resumption on 1st December 2025 could not substitute the statutory notice, and the dispute was not referred for conciliation under Section 62. The strike was therefore illegal and unprotected. On essential services, the Court found the members' right to strike statutorily restricted but declined to declare a blanket prohibition, endorsing Minimum Service Agreements as the preferred framework; the absence of any such mechanism independently rendered the action impermissible. The declaration issued, members were directed to continue working, and each party was left to bear its own costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the strike action undertaken by members of the Respondent unions was illegal and unprotected
  2. 2.Whether members of the Respondent unions are prohibited from participating in a strike

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the strike was illegal and unprotected

Holding

Yes - the press statement of 29th November 2025 did not comply with Section 76; the initial notice was spent after resolution of 10 of 12 issues and suspension of the strike.

Reasoning

The initial 14-day notice satisfied Section 76(c), but after the Bipartisan Agreement of 8th November 2025 resolved 10 of 12 issues and the strike was suspended, the notice was spent. A fresh 7-day written notice to the employer and Cabinet Secretary was required. The press statement could not substitute it, and the dispute was not reported for conciliation under Section 62.

p. 18
02

Whether members of the Respondent unions are prohibited from striking as essential services employees

Holding

Their right to strike is statutorily restricted under Sections 78(1)(f) and 81(3), but the Court declined to hold them prohibited in all circumstances.

Reasoning

Hospital services are essential services under the Fourth Schedule, so the right to strike is restricted. However, the Court, citing Kenya Ferry Services, favoured less restrictive means and a Minimum Service Agreement framework. No such agreement existed, which independently rendered the intended action impermissible, but a blanket prohibition was not declared.

p. 20

Legal principles established

#
  • Once the issues in an initial strike notice are substantially resolved and the strike suspended, the initial notice is spent and cannot support a fresh strike; a new written notice complying with Section 76 of the Labour Relations Act is required.
  • A press statement announcing resumption of industrial action is not the written statutory notice contemplated under Section 76(c) of the Labour Relations Act.
  • Unresolved grievances after failed negotiations must go through statutory conciliation under Section 62 of the Labour Relations Act before industrial action.
  • The right to strike is not absolute and may be limited under Article 24; strikes in essential services are statutorily restricted under Sections 78(1)(f) and 81(3) of the Labour Relations Act.
  • Absence of an agreed minimum services mechanism renders intended industrial action in an essential service impermissible.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the strike called by the Respondent unions through the joint press statement dated 29th November 2025 was illegal and unprotected
  2. 2.Members of the 1st and 3rd Respondent unions shall continue discharging their respective duties in view of the subsisting interim orders suspending the industrial action
  3. 3.There shall be no order as to costs

The bench

#

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

SR
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over trade disputes and industrial action under the Labour Relations Act; Claimant is a County Government under Article 176(1) of the Constitution

Relief refused

#

Declaration that the Respondents' union members belong to essential services and are barred from participating in any strike under Section 81(3) of the Labour Relations Act

Court hesitant to impose a permanent prohibition; urged parties to negotiate a Minimum Service Agreement

p. 22

Costs

There shall be no order as to 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.

A declaration is hereby issued that the strike called by the Respondent unions through the joint press statement dated 29th November 2025 was illegal and unprotected.
p. 23Final orders - declaration of illegality
In view of the subsisting interim orders suspending the industrial action, members of the 1st and 3rd Respondent unions shall continue discharging their respective duties.
p. 23Final orders - resumption of duties
There shall be no order as to costs.
p. 23Final orders - costs
the initial strike notice was spent. Therefore, it could not be relied upon as the statutory notice for the subsequent industrial action contemplated to commence on 1st December 2025
Spent strike notice
A public announcement of an intention to resume industrial action cannot substitute the formal statutory notice required by law.
p. 17Press statement not statutory notice

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Inconsistent dates for the initial strike notice

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Embu County Government v Kenya Union of Clinical Officers & 7 others", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Cause No. E060 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2704/eng@2026-09-25

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