[2020] KEELRC 159 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 159 (KLR)

The court found that the claimants were initially employed on fixed-term contracts as Youth Polytechnic Instructors under the Economic Stimulus Programme, and their contracts were extended with the expectation—based on a consultative directive from the Transition Authority—that they would be absorbed by the county...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 159 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kichamu Litten Muhenzi, Rachel Kadenyi Mmbihi, Olga Apondi Jaimbo, Nelima Philid Samita, Hezekiah Odondi Musulwa, David Simiyu Saa Sita, Joseck N. Mmboga, Kenneth Ochieng, Lucy Rose Wafula, Rita Ameso Oronje, Denis Livuku Frankline, Violet Kiza; Respondent: Vihiga County Public Service Board
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 390 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants.
Judges
DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Legitimate Expectation, Public Service Employment, Salary Arrears, Devolution of Functions
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Legitimate Expectation Public Service Employment Salary Arrears Devolution of Functions

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kichamu Litten Muhenzi, Rachel Kadenyi Mmbihi, Olga Apondi Jaimbo, Nelima Philid Samita, Hezekiah Odondi Musulwa, David Simiyu Saa Sita, Joseck N. Mmboga, Kenneth Ochieng, Lucy Rose Wafula, Rita Ameso Oronje, Denis Livuku Frankline, Violet Kiza

Applicant

Vihiga County Public Service Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondent unlawfully failed to absorb the claimants into permanent and pensionable employment as directed by the Transition Authority.
  2. 2 Whether the claimants were unfairly terminated from employment by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are entitled to salary arrears and compensation for unfair termination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimants were initially employed on fixed-term contracts as Youth Polytechnic Instructors under the Economic Stimulus Programme, and their contracts were extended with the expectation—based on a consultative directive from the Transition Authority—that they would be absorbed by the county government on permanent and pensionable terms. Instead, the respondent advertised and recruited afresh for the positions, excluding the claimants and ceasing their salaries from July 2015. The court held that this conduct was in direct contravention of the Transition Authority's directive and breached the claimants' legitimate expectation of continued employment. The...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants.

Orders

  • Each claimant is awarded Kshs.405,000 being salary from July 2015 to September 2017 at Kshs.15,000 per month, covering arrears and compensation for unfair termination and breach of legitimate expectation.
  • The respondent shall pay the claimants' costs of the suit.