Moi Teaching & Referral Hospital v Kenya National Union of Nurses and Midwives & 3 others

KENYA NATIONAL UNION OF NURSES AND MIDWIVES ………………………………. RESPONDENT AND SALARIES AND REMUNERATION COMMISSION…………………………………….1ST INTESTRED PARTY CABINET SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH……………………………...2ND RESPONDENT CABINET SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND SOCIAL PROTECTION…………………………3RD INTERSTED PARTY JUDGMENT Introduction 1. The Petitioner is a State Corporation established under Legal Notice No. 78 of 6 April 1988. 2. The Respondent is a Trade Union registered under the Labour Relations Act, 2007, to represent nurses and midwives in Kenya. ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 2 JUDGMENT

page 2 of 32

3. The 1st Interested Party is a Constitutional Commission established under Article 230 of the Constitution and mandated, among other functions, to set and regularly review the remuneration and benefits of State officers. 4. The 2nd Interested Party is the Cabinet Secretary responsible for health, while the 3rd Interested Party is the Cabinet Secretary responsible for Labour and Social Protection. The Petitioner’s case 5. Vide the petition dated 19 th March 2025, the Petitioner instituted the suit herein seeking the following reliefs: i. A declaration that the Respondent’s Notice of Intended Industrial Action dated 24th February 2025 and any other subsequent notices of intended industrial action with respect to the proposed seven grievances by the Respondents is unconstitutional, null and void. ii. An Order of Permanent Injunction do issue to prohibit the Respondent by itself or by its servants, agents or whomsoever from or of its MTRH branch from exercising the rights under Articles 37 and 41(2)(d) of ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 3 JUDGMENT

page 3 of 32

the Constitution with respect to the proposed grievances iii. A declaration that the right to life is greater than the right to go on strike and a finding that these rights are inconsistent with the general intent of the Constitution when applied to members of the Respondent. iv. A declaration limiting the rights under Articles 37 and 41(2)(d) for members of the Respondent as outlined in Article 24(1) of the Constitution. v. 6. The costs of this Petition be awarded to the Petitioner. The Petition is supported by the affidavit of Ann Chemworsio, the Petitioner’s Director of Human Resource and Capacity Development, sworn on 18th March 2025. Ms. Chemworsio avers that the Petitioner engaged the Respondent in negotiations over seven grievances raised on behalf of the Respondent’s members and the parties reached an agreement on four of the grievances while the remaining three were partially resolved. 7. The Petitioner further states that it held meetings with the Respondent, ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 including meetings 4 facilitated by the 3 rd JUDGMENT

page 4 of 32

Interested Party, in an effort to resolve the outstanding issues. That notwithstanding the progress made, the Respondent issued a notice of intended industrial action dated 24th February 2025 demanding the immediate resolution of all seven grievances, including matters that the Petitioner considers resolved. 8. It is the Petitioner’s case that as a national teaching and referral hospital continuous services providing healthcare would critical, services, substantially emergency withdrawal disrupt patient of and nursing care and jeopardise the rights to the highest attainable standard of health and to emergency medical treatment under Article 43 of the Constitution. It further asserts that the interruption of those services would place patients’ right to life under Article 26 at risk. 9. The Petitioner maintains that the Respondent’s proposed industrial action is prohibited by sections 78(1)(f) and 81 of the Labour Relations Act, as the Respondent’s members are engaged in the provision of essential services. ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 5 JUDGMENT

page 5 of 32

10. Together with the petition, the Petitioner filed a Notice of Motion dated 19th March 2025 seeking interim orders restraining the Respondent and its members from calling for or participating in a general strike or withdrawal of nursing services. In addition, the Petitioner sought a declaration that the strike called through the notice of 24th February 2025 was unlawful and unprotected and an order directing the 3 rd Interested Party to appoint a Conciliator to resolve the remaining dispute. The Respondent’s case 11. The Respondent opposed the petition and the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 26th March 2025 by Kibet Kirui, its Industrial Relations Officer. It contended that the Petitioner had failed to disclose material developments in the dispute. 12. The Respondent asserted that it issued a 21-day strike notice on 24th February 2025, which expired on 18th March 202. That the strike that is the subject of the Petition herein commenced ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 on 19th March 6 2025. According to the JUDGMENT

page 6 of 32

Respondent, the strike was called in accordance with section 76 of the Labour Relations Act. 13. The Respondent further contended that the dispute had been referred to the Ministry of Labour and that a Conciliator had been appointed. That several conciliation meetings took place but the dispute was never resolved. 14. It is the Respondent’s case that the Petitioner frustrated those efforts by sending representatives who lacked authority to make binding decisions and by failing to attend a scheduled meeting on 21st March 2025 15. The Respondent stated that the parties had contemplated a Return-To-Work Formula, but the Petitioner failed to commit to its proposals. That in addition, the Petitioner had failed to honour an earlier Return-to-Work Agreement dated 10 th January 2025. On this basis, the Respondent averred that its members were apprehensive about resuming work without a clear and enforceable agreement protecting them against victimization. 16. The Respondent further stated that it was served with the interim orders on 25th March 2025, after the strike had ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 7 JUDGMENT

page 7 of 32

begun and that by then, the Petitioner had issued notices to show cause to union members and required them to surrender their entry tags, thereby restricting their access to the workplace. 17. The Respondent maintained that the right to strike is protected under Article 41(2)(d) of the Constitution and that it complied with the applicable statutory requirements. Further, that it made provision for minimum and essential services during the strike. 18. The court was thus urged to dismiss the application and discharge the interim orders. Subsequent developments The Return-to-Work Formula 19. During the pendency of the petition, the parties executed a Return-to-Work Formula on 4th April 2025. The Return-toWork Formula was adopted as an order of the Court on the same date. It expressly called off the strike and provided for nurses to resume duty, payment of withheld salaries, ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 8 JUDGMENT

page 8 of 32

withdrawal of suspension letters and protection against victimisation. 20. The Return-to-Work Formula also set out steps for addressing the grievances that had led to the industrial action. These included follow-up by a committee on staff medical cover, consideration of promotion and career progression issues by the CBA implementation committee, initiation of CBA amendment process concerning the proposed 2020 SRC salary increase, and reporting on the remittance of deductions. The implementation report and the Respondent’s response 21. On 3rd June 2025, the Court directed the Petitioner to file, within twenty-one days, a report on the implementation of the matters agreed upon by the parties. 22. The Petitioner subsequently filed an implementation report on 29th September 2025. It stated that the nurses had resumed duty, that their withheld salaries had been paid and suspension letters had been withdrawn. It further stated that committees had been appointed to address medical cover and CBA implementation. ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 9 JUDGMENT

page 9 of 32

23. Regarding promotions and career progression, the Petitioner stated that a CBA implementation committee had been appointed and promotions agreed upon by the parties were to be implemented with effect from 1 st July 2025. On the proposed salary increase, the Petitioner reported that it was in receipt of a notice proposing amendment of the CBA received in April 2025 and that a meeting would be convened to discuss the proposed amendments. 24. The Petitioner also reported payments towards outstanding deductions and pension contributions. It asserted that pension balances remained outstanding and it was pursuing additional budgetary support from the National Treasury. On rotations within the nursing department, the Petitioner reported that the matter would be addressed in the ongoing review of its human resource instruments. It further reported that the question of locum allowances for nurses in the private wing had been placed before its Board. 25. The Respondent challenged the implementation report through a Further Replying Affidavit sworn by Kibet Kirui on 22nd October 2025. It contended that several commitments ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 10 JUDGMENT

page 10 of 32

under the Return-to-Work Formula had either been partially implemented or had not been implemented at all. 26. According to the Respondent, the committees established under the Return-to-Work Formula had not effectively discharged their mandates. It disputed compliance with promotions and re-designations, the proposed salary increase, quarterly reporting and remittance of deductions. It also contended that the Petitioner had not engaged meaningfully with its proposals concerning the existing and subsequent collective bargaining agreements. 27. The Respondent further averred that signatures attributed to two of its branch officials on the implementation report had been reproduced without their knowledge or authority. It relied on a letter in which the officials reportedly disowned the signatures. On that basis, the Respondent urged the Court to reject the report, require a fresh verified report and summon the officers responsible to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt. The Conciliator’s report ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 11 JUDGMENT

page 11 of 32

28. A Conciliator’s report was subsequently filed in Court on 23 rd March 2026. The report indicates that the parties attended a meeting on 19th March 2026 to review compliance with the Return-to-Work Formula. 29. The report sets out the parties’ respective positions on staff medical cover, promotions and career progression, the proposed salary increase, harassment and nursing staff shortages, delayed remittance of deductions, rotations within the nursing department and locum allowances for nurses working in the private wings. The Petitioner’s response to the Conciliator’s report 30. In response to the Conciliator’s report, the Petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit sworn on 4 th June 2026 by Ann Chemworsio in which it disputed the report’s assessment of compliance with certain clauses of the Return-to-Work Formula. It maintained that several undertakings had been implemented. 31. Regarding clause 1 on staff medical cover, the Petitioner stated that the implementation committee had followed up employees’ concerns with the service provider and reported ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 12 JUDGMENT

page 12 of 32

to the Chief Executive Officer on the progress made. It asserted that the concerns, including access to Eldoret Hospital and St. Lukes Hospital had been addressed before the medical cover provided by First Assurance Company Limited expired on 31st January 2026. 32. In support of that position, the Petitioner annexed the medical insurance contract dated 22nd January 2025, the notification of award, the policy documents and the notification of the rollout of the cover to employees. It contended that following expiry of the policy, the issue had been overtaken by events by the time of the conciliation meeting on 19th March 2026. 33. On clause 2 concerning promotions and stagnation in career progression, the Petitioner stated that 231 nurses had been promoted in July 2025. It annexed a list of the promoted nurses and maintained that no nurse whose name had been forwarded by the CBA implementation committee remained awaiting promotion. 34. Regarding clause 3, the Petitioner asserted that the Respondent had not initiated the CBA amendment process ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 13 JUDGMENT

page 13 of 32

contemplated under the Return-to-Work Formula for consideration by the Salaries and Remuneration Commission and the National Treasury. It further stated that the proposed salary review could be addressed during negotiations for the succeeding CBA. 35. The Petitioner stated that a negotiation meeting had been scheduled for 18th June 2026 and annexed correspondence concerning the appointment of the CBA implementation committee and negotiators, together with the invitation to the scheduled meeting. 36. On remittance of deductions, the Petitioner stated that statutory deductions had been remitted up to April 2026, except for pension contributions. It stated that the outstanding pension contributions would be settled during the 2026/2027 financial year pursuant to an agreement with the Retirement Benefits Authority. 37. Regarding clause 7 on locum allowances, the Petitioner maintained that nurses working in the private wing received the allowance and any unpaid amounts would be settled promptly. It also stated that a paper addressing the matter ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 14 JUDGMENT

page 14 of 32

had been submitted to its Board of Management and any resolution made by the Board would be implemented. 38. The Petitioner further stated that the parties had agreed that clauses 4, 6, 8 and 9 of the Return-to-Work Formula had been implemented. It urged the Court to determine the remaining disputed clauses in these proceedings. 39. Pursuant to the directions of the court, the Petition was canvassed through written submissions. Only the Petitioner filed submissions dated 19th June 2026. Determination 40. I have considered the petition, the parties’ affidavits, the Return-to-Work Formula adopted as an order of the Court on 4th April 2025, the implementation report, the Conciliator’s report and the written submissions on record. The following issues arise for determination: i. What was the effect of the Return-to-Work Formula on the dispute arising from the strike notice dated 24 th February 2025? ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 15 JUDGMENT

page 15 of 32

ii. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the declarations and permanent injunction sought in the Petition. iii. Whether the parties have complied with the Return-toWork Formula and what further orders, if any, are necessary. iv. Who should bear the costs of the petition. What was the effect of the Return-to-Work Formula on the dispute arising from the strike notice dated 24 th February 2025? 41. The filing of the present petition was necessitated by the Respondent’s strike notice dated 24 th February 2025. The Petitioner avers that, following negotiations between the parties, four of the grievances were fully resolved, while the remaining three were partially resolved yet the Respondent proceeded to issue the strike notice, thereby signalling its intention to commence industrial action despite the progress made in addressing the grievances. 42. On the other hand, the Respondent maintained that the dispute remained ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 unresolved 16 and the Petitioner had JUDGMENT

page 16 of 32

frustrated conciliation and failed to honour earlier commitments. 43. The Return-to-Work Formula dated 4 th April 2025 which was adopted in court on the same date was negotiated against that background. It addressed the immediate withdrawal of nursing services by expressly calling off the strike and providing for resumption of duty. It also addressed the consequences of the strike through provisions concerning withheld salaries, suspension letters and protection against victimisation. 44. The Return-to-Work Formula also established processes for addressing outstanding employment concerns which included negotiations, reporting and other implementation measures. The agreement therefore contained both immediate obligations and undertakings requiring further action. 45. Once adopted as an order of the Court, the Return-to-Work Formula became binding upon the parties. In Wasike v Wamboko [1985] KECA 149 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held that a consent judgment or order has contractual effect ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 17 JUDGMENT

page 17 of 32

and may only be set aside on recognised grounds that would justify setting aside an agreement. The parties’ obligations must consequently be considered with reference to the terms of the consent order. 46. In the present case, the calling off of the strike must be distinguished from complete settlement of the underlying grievances. Where consideration, the negotiations Formula or required implementation, further those obligations did not come to an end upon the nurses resuming duty. 47. It therefore follows that the Return-to-Work Formula resolved the immediate dispute concerning the withdrawal of nursing services pursuant to the strike notice dated 24 th February 2025, while preserving the parties’ obligations in respect of the outstanding grievances. The resumption of duty did not amount to a complete settlement of those grievances or discharge the undertakings requiring further action. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the declarations and permanent injunction sought in the petition ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 18 JUDGMENT

page 18 of 32

48. The Petitioner sought various reliefs in the Petition. It seeks a declaration that Industrial Action the Respondent’s dated 24th Notice February of 2025 Intended and any subsequent notices concerning the seven grievances are unconstitutional, null and void. In my view, the notice dated 24th February 2025 must be considered in light of the Returnto-Work Formula, which expressly called off the industrial action arising from the notice and provided for the resumption of nursing services. The immediate dispute occasioned by that notice was therefore addressed through the parties’ agreement, subsequently adopted as an order of the Court. In those circumstances, I find no need to issue a further declaration concerning that notice. 49. With regard to the subsequent notices, their validity would require examination of their terms, the circumstances in which they were issued and their compliance with the applicable law. The fact that a notice concerns one or more of the seven grievances does not establish that it is unconstitutional, null and void. I therefore decline the first relief sought. ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 19 JUDGMENT

page 19 of 32

50. Secondly, the Petitioner seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting the Respondent, its servants, agents or members of its MTRH branch from exercising the rights under Articles 37 and 41(2)(d) of the Constitution in respect of the seven grievances. The Petitioner’s concern regarding the interruption of essential nursing services and the resulting risk to patients is legitimate. However, the injunction sought extends beyond the particular industrial action that prompted these proceedings and would impose a continuing restraint on the exercise of distinct constitutional rights. In particular, peaceful assembly, demonstration, picketing and the presentation of petitions under Article 37 do not necessarily involve the withdrawal of nursing services. The need to protect patients does not warrant a prohibition covering all those activities. Further, the strike was called off and the Return-to-Work Formula established a binding framework for addressing the outstanding grievances. 51. In my view, giving effect to that framework provides a meaningful way of addressing the dispute without imposing ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 20 JUDGMENT

page 20 of 32

the broad and continuing prohibition sought. I accordingly decline the prayer for a permanent injunction. 52. Thirdly, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that the right to life is greater than the right to strike and a finding that these rights are inconsistent with the general intent of the Constitution when applied to members of the Respondent. In my view, the question for determination is whether a particular restriction on the exercise of the rights invoked is justified in the circumstances before the Court. A general declaration ranking the right to life above the right to strike would not resolve the separate questions concerning the nature, extent and justification of the proposed restriction. Similarly, the concerns arising from the withdrawal of nursing services do not establish that the exercise of the rights under Articles 37 and 41(2)(d) by the Respondent’s members is generally inconsistent with the Constitution. I therefore decline this relief. 53. Lastly, the Petitioner seeks a declaration limiting the rights of the Respondent’s members under Articles 37 and 41(2) (d), as contemplated by Article 24(1) of the Constitution. In ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 21 JUDGMENT

page 21 of 32

my view, the declaration sought is too broad. It does not sufficiently distinguish between the withdrawal of essential nursing services and the exercise of peaceful assembly, demonstration, picketing or the presentation of petitions without interruption of patient care. Further, the parties have already agreed upon a court-sanctioned framework for addressing the outstanding grievances. In those circumstances, I am not persuaded that the general limitation sought has been justified. I accordingly decline the fourth relief. 54. Consequently, the declarations and permanent injunction sought are declined. Whether the parties have complied with the Return-to-Work Formula and what further orders, if any, are necessary 55. The Petitioner contends that it complied with the Return-toWork Formula adopted as an order of the Court on 4 th April 2025. In support of that contention, it filed a supplementary affidavit sworn on 4th June 2026, setting out the steps taken to implement the Return-to-Work Formula and identifying ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 22 JUDGMENT

page 22 of 32

the documents relied upon as evidence of compliance. The Respondent disputes that position, maintaining that certain obligations remain unfulfilled. Its objections concern, among other matters, promotions and re-designations, the CBA amendment process, and the authenticity of signatures attributed to its branch officials on the September 2025 implementation report. Medical Cover 56. Regarding medical cover, the Petitioner states that the medical cover committee followed up on employees’ concerns and the difficulties in accessing services at Eldoret Hospital and St. Lukes Hospital were addressed before the policy expired on 31st January 2026. It relies on the insurance contract, policy documents and notifications relating to the cover. 57. Those documents are relevant to establishing the existence, duration and scope of the insurance arrangement. However, they have not demonstrated performance of the specific ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 23 JUDGMENT

page 23 of 32

follow-up and reporting obligations stipulated in clause 1 of the Formula. 58. Compliance must therefore be assessed against the specific undertaking and the evidence of the measures taken to fulfil it. Promotions and career progression 59. The Petitioner states that 231 nurses were promoted in July 2025. It annexed a list of the affected nurses. It further maintains that no nurse whose name was forwarded by the CBA implementation committee remains awaiting promotion. 60. This evidence provides a specific response to the allegation that the promotion undertaking was not implemented. The question is whether the list covers the employees and categories contemplated under clause 2 and whether the promotions took effect on the agreed dates and terms. 61. The Respondent’s objection also concerns re-designations. It is therefore necessary to ascertain whether re-designation constituted a separate undertaking under the Return-toWork Formula and, if so, whether the evidence relied upon ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 24 JUDGMENT

page 24 of 32

addresses that obligation. Evidence of promotion cannot be treated as proof of compliance with a distinct undertaking concerning re-designation. The proposed salary increase and CBA amendment process 62. In its September 2025 Implementation Report, the Petitioner acknowledged receipt of proposed amendments to the CBA in April 2025. However, in the supplementary affidavit sworn on 4th June 2026, the Petitioner maintained that the Respondent had not initiated the process contemplated under clause 3. 63. The Petitioner also relied on the appointment of negotiators and an invitation to a meeting scheduled for 18 th June 2026. These documents show that steps were taken towards negotiations. They however, do not establish whether the meeting took place, what was discussed or agreed upon or whether further action followed. 64. Accordingly, the material presented establishes steps towards implementation, but is insufficient to support a ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 25 JUDGMENT

page 25 of 32

finding of full compliance with clause 3 of the Return-to-Work Formula. Statutory deductions and pension contributions 65. The Petitioner states that statutory deductions, other than pension contributions, had been remitted up to April 2026. It relies on a summary prepared by its Directorate of Finance. The Petitioner in its supplementary affidavit also expressly admitted that pension contributions remain outstanding. It asserted that the arrears would be settled during the 2026/2027 financial year pursuant to an agreement with the Retirement Benefits Authority. 66. In my view, although the said payment arrangement is relevant to the proposed manner and timing of compliance, it does not show that the outstanding contributions have been remitted. The obligation cannot be regarded as fully discharged on the basis of an undertaking to settle the arrears in a future financial year. 67. Any further direction must therefore take into account the outstanding amount, the terms of the payment arrangement and the extent to which that arrangement addresses the ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 26 JUDGMENT

page 26 of 32

obligation under the Return-to-Work Formula. The account of implementation should distinguish contributions already remitted from those remaining unpaid. Locum allowances 68. The Petitioner maintains that nurses working in the private wing receive locum allowances and that any unpaid amounts would be settled promptly. It further states that a paper concerning the matter has been submitted to the Board of Management. 69. The payment of allowances and the referral of the matter to the Board are distinct aspects of implementation. Payment records are relevant in determining whether allowances due have been settled, while the Board paper and any resulting resolution are relevant to the consideration contemplated under clause 7 of the Return-to-Work Formula. 70. However, the mere referral of the matter to the Board cannot be equated with completion of the undertaking. Clauses reported as implemented ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 27 JUDGMENT

page 27 of 32

71. The Petitioner stated that the parties agreed that clauses 4, 6, 8 and 9 had been implemented. Accordingly, there is no need to consider those clauses further. The disputed signatures 72. The Respondent also has disputed the signatures attributed to its branch officials on the September 2025 implementation report. I have assessed the extent of implementation based on the supporting documents placed before the court. Further directions 73. Section 12(3)(viii) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act empowers the Court to grant appropriate relief. 74. Having considered the documentary evidence placed before the Court, I find that implementation is neither wholly complete nor wholly absent. The Petitioner has identified measures taken towards compliance in respect of pension contributions that remain outstanding. The Respondent, however, disputes the Petitioner’s position that the steps taken amount to full implementation in several respects. ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 28 JUDGMENT

page 28 of 32

75. In particular, the admitted pension arrears show that the Return-to-Work Formula has not been fully implemented. The proposed negotiations and the referral of the matter to the Board must also be considered against the specific undertakings to determine whether they amount to full or partial compliance. 76. The Petitioner shall therefore file a verified account of implementation for each outstanding clause, supported by the relevant records. The account shall identify the undertaking, the action taken, the date of implementation and any obligation that remains outstanding. Where implementation is incomplete, it shall specify the remaining action and the proposed timeframe for completion. Clauses whose implementation has already been established shall not be reopened. 77. The Respondent shall have an opportunity to respond to that account, identify the specific matters it disputes and provide supporting documents. This will enable the Court to give further enforcement directions based on the outstanding obligations and the evidence presented. ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 29 JUDGMENT

page 29 of 32

Who should bear the costs of the petition? 78. Section 12(4) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act gives the Court discretion concerning costs. In exercising that discretion, I take into account the circumstances in which the proceedings arose and the parties’ subsequent negotiated agreement. Taking into account the negotiated resumption of services, the continuing relationship between the parties and the outstanding implementation questions, I consider it appropriate that each party bears its own costs. 79. In the upshot, I make the following orders: i. The declarations and permanent injunction sought in the petition are declined. ii. The Return-to-Work Formula adopted as an order of the Court on 4th April 2025 remains binding upon the parties. iii. The Petitioner shall within 60 days file and serve an updated implementation affidavit addressing the outstanding and disputed undertakings under the Return-to-Work Formula. The affidavit shall identify the ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 30 JUDGMENT

page 30 of 32

action taken, annex the supporting records and state any obligation remaining unfulfilled. iv. With regard to pension contributions, the affidavit shall disclose the outstanding balance, the agreement relied upon for settlement and the applicable payment schedule. v. The CBA amendment process shall be separated from the rest of the items under the Return-to-Work Formula, as the law provides for the procedure for resolution of CBA disputes. It shall therefore be removed from the list of outstanding items under the Return-to-Work Formula. vi. On locum allowances, the affidavit shall distinguish payments made from matters referred to the Board and disclose any resulting decision. vii. The Respondent is at liberty to file and serve a response within fourteen days of service, identifying the specific matters disputed and annexing its supporting documents. ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 31 JUDGMENT

page 31 of 32

viii. This matter consideration shall of be mentioned compliance and thereafter any for necessary enforcement directions. Either the Petitioner or the Respondent is at liberty to move the court in that regard. ix. Each party shall bear its own costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 MAUREEN ONYANGO JUDGE ELD PET NO. E006 OF 2025 32 JUDGMENT

page 32 of 32