[2024] KEELRC 13240 (KLR)

[2024] KEELRC 13240 (KLR)

The court found that the petitioner was employed by the 1st respondent on permanent and pensionable terms and that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing or misconduct on her part. The respondents failed to provide any justification for removing the petitioner from the payroll or denying her access to her...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELRC 13240 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Halima Omar Gaal; Respondent: Wajir County Assembly; Respondent: Wajir County Assembly Service Board; Respondent: The Clerk County Assembly of Wajir
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Constitutional Petition E155 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed. Judgment entered for the petitioner as prayed.
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Unlawful Withholding of Salary, Fair Administrative Action, Right to Fair Labour Practices, Reinstatement of Employee, Discrimination in Employment
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Constitutional Law Unlawful Withholding of Salary Fair Administrative Action Right to Fair Labour Practices Reinstatement of Employee Discrimination in Employment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Halima Omar Gaal

Applicant

Wajir County Assembly

Respondent

Wajir County Assembly Service Board

Respondent

The Clerk County Assembly of Wajir

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the removal of the petitioner from the payroll and denial of access to her workplace was unprocedural, unjustified, and unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether withholding the petitioner’s salary constituted a violation of her constitutional and statutory rights.
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and payment of all pending dues.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioner was employed by the 1st respondent on permanent and pensionable terms and that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing or misconduct on her part. The respondents failed to provide any justification for removing the petitioner from the payroll or denying her access to her workplace. The court held that the respondents' actions were unprocedural, unjustified, and unlawful, violating the petitioner's rights to fair labour practices, fair administrative action, and dignity as protected under the Constitution. The court further found that withholding the petitioner's salary without due process amounted to gross labour malpractice and was unconstitutional....

Court Disposition

Petition allowed. Judgment entered for the petitioner as prayed.

Orders

  • A declaration is issued that the removal of the petitioner from the payroll, denial of access to her workplace, and withholding of her salary was unprocedural, unjustified, and unlawful and in violation of Article 41(1) of the Constitution.
  • A declaration is issued that withholding the petitioner’s salary from October 2017 to date constitutes gross labour malpractice and is unconstitutional.