Anne Wairimu Kinuthia v County Government of Kiambu
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court sent a county HR director's employment dispute to the Public Service Commission but protected her job, salary and position in the meantime.
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 suit is premature and the court lacks jurisdiction to determine it in the first instant.
- 2.Whether the Claimant's Motion dated 18th February 2026 and the other dated 2nd June 2026 should be allowed as prayed.
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELRC has first-instance jurisdiction over employment grievances of county public officers
The court held its jurisdiction on the merits is taken away by the Public Service Commission Act; grievances fall within the internal appeal procedure under Section 77 of the County Government Act and Sections 85 and 87 of the Public Service Commission Act
The court applied binding Court of Appeal authority on exhaustion of statutory dispute mechanisms. The Claimant's grievances over interdiction, withheld half salary and redeployment fall squarely within the statutory appellate avenue to the Public Service Commission, which she did not exhaust, and no special circumstances justified bypassing it.
Whether the court retains residual jurisdiction to grant interlocutory reliefs pending exhaustion
Yes - the court retains residual jurisdiction to grant interlocutory reliefs to preserve the subject matter pending determination by the alternative forum, supported by Rule 56(5) of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2024
Relying on Rule 56(5) and Manani J's decision in Joseph Mutisya Laban, the court held that quasi-judicial bodies generally lack power to issue interim reliefs, so courts may entertain applications for interim orders notwithstanding non-exhaustion. This justified the stay of disciplinary proceedings and the restraint orders.
Whether withheld salary during a lifted interdiction should be released
Yes - the withheld salary was an obvious matter and was ordered released forthwith
The interdiction had been lifted without any change in circumstances by the employer or police, and the fresh disciplinary proceedings related only to alleged absconding after the lifting. The court found the withheld salary ought to be released to mitigate losses on the Claimant's loans to third parties.
Whether the Public Service Commission Act unlawfully excludes devolved government employees from court access
The court observed that the Act completely locks out devolved government employees from court access on the merits, unlike national government civil servants, and left the matter to law reform
Comparing the WIBA regime, which preserves review and appeal to the ELRC, the court noted Section 89 of the Public Service Commission Act allows court access only for enforcement of Commission decisions, not merits review. The court declined to do more, leaving the gap to workers' representatives to propose reform.
Legal principles established
#- Where a sufficient and adequate alternative forum exists, a party ought to pursue that forum rather than invoke the court process
- Want of exhaustion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms does not bar a suit for interim orders pending such exhaustion
- A suit filed prior to exhaustion may be stayed, not struck out, on account of non-exhaustion
Court orders
#- 1.The dispute herein is referred to the Public Service Commission for hearing and determination on merits.
- 2.The Public Service Commission is directed to give priority to this matter considering the delay it has taken from 2024.
- 3.The respondent is restrained from appointing any person to replace the Claimant from her substantive position of Director, Human Resource and Development pending the outcome of the dispute now referred to the Public Service Commission.
- 4.The respondent is restrained from undertaking any disciplinary proceedings and action against the Claimant pending the outcome of the dispute now referred to the Public Service Commission.
- 5.The respondent is ordered and directed to pay the Claimant all the salary withheld from her during the interdiction period from March 2024 to December 2025 when it was lifted.
- 6.Costs of the Motions shall abide the decision of the Public Service Commission.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; jurisdiction found ousted by Sections 85, 87 and 89 of the Public Service Commission Act, with residual jurisdiction to grant interlocutory reliefs
Relief refused
#Reinstatement to substantive position and all other prayers in the Motions and statement of claim
The same prayers are sought in the main suit and the Public Service Commission is best suited to adjudicate upon them; the court lacks first-instance jurisdiction on the merits
Costs
Costs of the Motions shall abide the decision of the Public Service Commission.
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 dispute herein is referred to the Public Service Commission for hearing and determination on merits.
The respondent is ordered and directed to pay the Claimant all the salary withheld from her during the interdiction period from March 2024 to December 2025 when it was lifted.
the jurisdiction of this court under Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act seems not to have been postponed, but altogether taken away.
justice dictates that I freeze all disciplinary proceedings against the Claimant until the final determination of the dispute herein by the Public Service Commission
want of exhaustion of such alternative dispute resolution mechanisms shall not operate as a bar to a suit for application for interim orders
Issues in the judgment
#Compulsory leave duration stated as 90 days in narrative but 10 days in final orders
Court declares jurisdiction altogether taken away yet grants final relief (payment of withheld salary) and refers the dispute
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anne Wairimu Kinuthia v County Government of Kiambu", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Cause No. E171 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2770/eng@2026-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.