https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1837

Kip’ngetich v Governor, Nakuru County & 3 others (Petition E013 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 1837 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1837 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru Petition E013 of 2026 J Rika, J June 30, 2026 Between Dr Charles Koech Kip’Ngetich Petitioner and The Governor, Nakuru County 1st Respondent The County Secretary, Nakuru County 2nd Respondent County Government of nakuru 3rd Respondent The nakuru County Public Service Board 4th Respondent Ruling 1.The Petitioner was employed by the 4th Respondent on 1st September 2025, as the County Chief Officer, ICT, E-Government and Public Communications. 2.He filed this Petition dated 18th February 2026. He claims that the Respondents unfairly and unlawfully terminated his contract, through a letter dated 6th February 2026. 3.He prays for a raft of declaratory orders, and conventional employment remedies, including reinstatement, compensation and terminal benefits. 4.He filed an application dated 18th February 2026, asking the Court to restrain the Respondents from replacing him with other persons, until the Petition is heard and determined. 5.The Court granted him the order in the interim, and also directed his mind to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Secretary, County Public Service Board & Another v. Hulbhai Gedi Abdille [2017] KECA 643 [KLR]. 6.The decision underscores that county public servants, aggrieved by the decisions of their Employers, cannot bypass the statutory dispute resolution mechanisms, by petitioning the Courts directly. 7.Section 77 of the County Governments Act, Section 87 [2] of the Public Service Commission Act, which have their Constitutional anchorage under Article 234 [2] [b] [i] of the Constitution, mandate the Public Service Commission, to hear and determine appeals in respect of County Governments’ Public Service. 8.Section 89 of the Public Service Commission Act limits the jurisdiction of this Court to enforcement of the decisions of the Public Service Commission on appeal. 9.The Respondents have raised preliminary objection based on these laws, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to continue hearing the Petition. 10.The preliminary objection is well-founded in law. 11.The Petitioner submits that he filed an appeal at the Public Service Commission, in compliance with the law, but that there was no response from the Public Service Commission, necessitating his Petition before the Court. 12.He states that he appealed to the Public Service Commission on 11th February 2026. 13.His Petition is dated 18th February 2026, one week after he filed his Appeal at the Public Service Commission. 14.Exhaustion of the statutory mechanism, under Section 77 of the County Governments Act, and Section 87[2] of the Public Service Commission Act, cannot have taken place within a week. 15.Exhaustion means more than just filing of an Appeal at the Public Service Commission. The filing Party must pursue the Appeal to its logical conclusion. The Appeal must be pursued to a point where the Public Service Commission reaches the end of its mandate. A Party should not file an Appeal as a formality, abandon the Appeal, and immediately petition the Court. That is not exhaustion; it is avoidance of exhaustion. It is inconceivable that the Petitioner exhausted the statutory mechanism in a week, before petitioning the Court. 16.The Petition is also brought in disregard of clause 10 of the Parties’ contract of employment, on settlement of disputes. 17.Clause 10.0.1 requires that the Parties shall use all legal mechanisms available at their discretion, to amicably settle disputes arising out of, or in connection with the contract, or its interpretation. 18.Clause 10.0.2, states that any dispute, difference, or question which may arise at any time between the Parties, which shall not have been resolved in 10.1.1 above, shall be referred for arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1995, the Laws of Kenya [or as shall be amended from time to time] shall be applicable and binding to the Parties. 19.There is therefore a second dispute resolution mechanism open to the Parties. 20.There is no reason why the Petitioner has bypassed these mechanisms, and jumped straight to Court. He may still revert to the available mechanisms, after his Petition is struck out.Ordered It Is:a.The preliminary objection is upheld.b.The Petition is struck out for want of jurisdiction.c.Costs to the Respondents. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, UNDER RULE 68[5] OF THE E&LRC [PROCEDURE] RULES, 2024, THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.JAMES RIKAJUDGE