https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1624

Republic v County Government of Kakamega & 5 others; Aleyo & 16 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Judicial Review E004 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1624 (KLR) (11 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1624 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kakamega Judicial Review E004 of 2024 DN Nderitu, J June 11, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF DECLARATION, PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS Between Republic Applicant and County Government of Kakamega 1st Respondent The Governor, County Government Of Kakamega 2nd Respondent The County Secretary, County Government Of Kakamega 3rd Respondent Chief Officer Medical Services, County Government Of Kakamega 4th Respondent Chief Officer Public Service, County Government Of Kakamega 5th Respondent and Kakamega County Public Service Board Interested Party and Dr. Maureen Maleche Aleyo Ex parte Applicant Dr. Sharon Oginda Ex parte Applicant Dr. Sarah Agunda Ex parte Applicant Dr. Benson Maina Ex parte Applicant Dr. Nelson Oduor Ex parte Applicant Dr. Kohe Alexandre Ex parte Applicant Dr. Geoffrey Matete Ex parte Applicant Dr. Bonface Nyumbile Ex parte Applicant Dr. Faith Mutai Ex parte Applicant Dr. Louis Wekesa Ex parte Applicant Dr. Brian Opondo Ex parte Applicant Dr. Jedidah Kimutai Ex parte Applicant Dr. Evans Malenje Ex parte Applicant Dr. David Andambi Ex parte Applicant Dr. Sarah Okiya Ex parte Applicant Dr. Barbara Murila Ex parte Applicant Dr. Yonah Oluoch Opondo Ex parte Applicant Judgment I. Inroduction 1.In a Notice of Motion (the application) dated 6th October 2024 the Applicants through Nyikuli Shifwoka & Company Advocates are seeking for the following orders –1.That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of Declaration that the Applicants' supposed removal from the Payroll and stoppage and or withholding of their salaries since 21 August, 2024 is tantamount to economic, financial and psychological torture and an act of outright violation and breach of their economic rights contrary to Articles 25(a) - (c), 41(1) & (2), 43(1)(a), 47 & 50 of the Constitution of Kenya as well as in clear breach of Sections 26, 35, 44, 45 & 46 of the Employment Act, and consequently unconstitutional and illegal for being irregularly summary, unlawful and unfair, an act of constructive termination or dismissal from employment and is therefore a nullity.2.That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of Prohibition to prohibit any of the Respondents or their agents and or any person from implementing or further implementing or acting on any and or all the contents of the supposed letters and or Notices to Show Cause dated 21/08/2024 giving the Applicants 1 4 days from the date thereof to respond and only brought to the attention of Applicants at a "Consultative" meeting with the Respondents on 16/09/2024, long after the response period had lapsed!3.That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of Certiorari to bring to this court and quash all the said letters and or Notices to Show Cause dated 21/08/2024, giving the Applicants 14 days from the date thereof to respond, and only brought to the attention of Applicants at a "Consultative" meeting with the Respondents on 16/09/2024, long after the response period had lapsed.4.That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of Mandamus directing Respondents and the Interested Party to proceed without any further delay and implement the terms and all conditions of the Return to Work Formula mutually negotiated, agreed upon and executed by and or for the parties hereto on 8/05/2024 and as further been prior legitimately planned and agreed upon vide the Roadmap Promotion of Doctors, Pharmacists and Dentists on 22/09/2023.5.That the costs of this application be provided for. 2.The application is expressed to be brought pursuant to Articles 47 & 165(6) of the Constitution, Section 7 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act and Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2022. 3.The application is based on the grounds stated on the face of it and supported with the statutory statement dated 26th September 2024 and the supporting affidavit of the 1st Applicant, sworn on 6th October 2024 with the authority from the other applicants, with several annexures thereto. 4.The application was filed pursuant to leave granted by the court on 3rd October 2024. 5.In response to the application through Brian Otieno & Company Advocates, the Respondents filed a replying affidavit sworn by Lawrence Omuhaka, the County Secretary, on 14th May 2025. 6.The Applicants filed a supplementary affidavit sworn by the 1st Applicant on 26th September 2025 and, in response, the Respondents filed a supplementary affidavit sworn by Lawrence Omuhaka on 10th November 2025. 7.The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. Mr Shifwoka, counsel for the applicants, filed submissions dated 6th October 2025 and Mr Otieno, for the Respondents, filed submissions dated 23rd September 2025. The Interested Party did not participate in the proceedings. II.Evidence 8.The Applicants pleaded that they are Medical Consultants employed by the 1st Respondent and deployed across various health facilities within Kakamega County. 9.The Applicants’ case arises from the Respondents’ decision to issue Show Cause letters (the notices) dated 21st August 2024 and the subsequent removal of the Applicants from the payroll alongside the stoppage and/or withholding of their salaries. The Applicants contend that the said notices were not served upon them within the stipulated time and were only brought to their attention during a consultative meeting held on 16th September 2024, long after the period for response had lapsed. They assert that this denied them the opportunity to be heard and rendered the entire disciplinary process procedurally unfair, irrational, and unlawful. 10.The Applicants further contend that their removal from the payroll and suspension of their salaries were summary actions, undertaken in bad faith and without due process, amounting to constructive dismissal. They argue that those actions subjected them to economic, financial, and psychological hardship and the same were unconstitutional, illegal, unreasonable, and unconscionable. 11.It is the Applicants’ position that at all material times they were engaged in a lawful and duly notified industrial action, undertaken as a last resort following the Respondents’ failure to implement the Return to Work Formula Agreement dated 8th May 2024 and the Roadmap for Promotion of Doctors, Pharmacists and Dentists dated 22nd September 2023. They maintain that the said industrial action has never been declared unlawful by any court of competent jurisdiction and that the Respondents are estopped from claiming otherwise. 12.The Applicants assert that the Respondents have deliberately frustrated the implementation of the said agreements, including undermining the role of the Interested Party and impeding the execution of an Implementation Matrix, despite orders issued in Kakamega ELRC Petition No. E008 of 2023 and Kisumu Court of Appeal Civil Application Nos. E075 and E077 of 2024. They contend that the Respondents’ continued failure, delay, and or refusal to implement the agreed terms is unreasonable, in bad faith, and in breach of their legitimate expectations. 13.The Applicants further challenge the competence of the replying affidavit filed by the Respondents, contending that it was sworn by a person lacking the requisite legal authority to depone on behalf of the County Secretary, and that the same is therefore invalid and should be struck out. 14.The Applicants deny absconding duty and reiterate that all procedural requirements preceding the industrial action were complied with. They argue that participation in a lawful strike does not constitute a valid ground for disciplinary action or dismissal under the law. They further contend that the notices were issued and handled in a manner intended to intimidate and frustrate due process, and that no evidence of proper service of the notices has been provided. 15.The Applicants maintain that the Respondents’ actions violated their fundamental constitutional rights under Articles 25, 41, 43, 47 and 50 of the Constitution, as well as the provisions of the Employment Act relating to fair and lawful disciplinary process and termination. They argue that the Respondents acted in breach of the principles of natural justice, fair administrative action, and abused the doctrine of legitimate expectation. 16.Additionally, the Applicants aver that the Respondents have failed to fully implement the agreed terms, including promotions, payment of salary arrears, and provision of adequate medical insurance. They assert that promotions have been applied selectively and irregularly some Applicants remain in lower job groups despite their qualifications, salary arrears remain unpaid, and some Applicants have since resigned due to frustration. They further contend that statutory deductions have not been remitted and that the impugned notices have not been withdrawn or regularized. 17.The Applicants also assert that the conduct of the Respondents have adversely affected the delivery of healthcare services, including supervision of medical interns and students, thereby exposing the public to risk. 18.The Applicants rely on Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 7 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, contending that the impugned decisions were procedurally unfair, irrational, unreasonable, made in bad faith, and not in compliance with mandatory legal requirements. They further assert that the Respondents’ conduct violates the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the protections accorded under the Employment Act, particularly against unfair disciplinary action and termination or dismissal arising from a lawful industrial action. 19.In the circumstances, the Applicants maintain that the actions by the Respondents are unconstitutional, unlawful, procedurally improper, unreasonable, and in breach of their legitimate expectations. They seek for orders to quash the impugned notices, prohibit implementation of the decision made thereafter, compel the implementation of the Return to Work Formula and related agreements, and declare their removal from the payroll unlawful. They further contend that unless the orders sought are granted, they will continue to suffer prejudice and the impugned actions will persist to the detriment of both the Applicants and the members of public who deserve good health services. 20.In the replying and supplementary affidavits of Lawrence Omuhaka, the Respondents opposed the application and contended that the Applicants unlawfully absented themselves from duty from 1st August 2024 without complying with the provisions of the Labour Relations Act governing industrial action, including the requirement for minimum service in essential services. It is deponed that following this absenteeism, the Respondents issued notices dated 21st August 2024 giving the Applicants 14 days to respond, but no formal responses were received from the Applicants. 21.The Respondents assert that the notices were lawfully issued to accord the Applicants an opportunity to explain their absence and to show-cause why disciplinary action, including summary dismissal under the Employment Act, would not be taken against them. They further state that the decision to suspend the salaries and remove the Applicants from the payroll was an administrative measure necessitated by their continued absence from duty, emphasizing that employees are only entitled to remuneration for work performed. 22.It is the Respondents’ case that the Applicants were not dismissed from employment but were only temporarily removed from the payroll pending compliance with the disciplinary processes. The Respondents maintain that the notices were properly and timeously served, and that the consultative meeting held on 16th September 2024 did not negate the Applicants’ obligation to respond. 23.The Respondents further contend that the industrial action undertaken by the Applicants was unlawful, as it was not sanctioned by the court nor supported by a certificate of unresolved dispute as required under the Labour Relations Act. They argue that the Applicants prematurely withdrew their services on 1st August 2024, before the lapse of the implementation period under the Return-to-Work Formula, thereby disrupting healthcare services and exposing patients and medical training programs to risk. 24.On the issue of implementation of the Return-to-Work Formula (RTWF) Agreement dated 8th May 2024, the Respondents aver that its execution was affected by institutional and legal constraints, including the absence of a properly constituted County Public Service Board following its dissolution by the County Assembly, as affirmed in a court ruling delivered on 29th February 2024. They maintain that certain aspects of the agreement were subject to conditions precedent, including budgetary allocations, approvals by the County Assembly, and compliance with statutory frameworks, and could not be implemented unilaterally. 25.The Respondents further assert that the mandate to implement most aspects of the RTWF lies with the Interested Party under the County Governments Act, and that the absence of a functional board temporarily impeded that implementation. However, they state that the Board has since been reconstituted, with members nominated, approved, and sworn in on 7th May 2025, thereby paving the way for full implementation. 26.It is also deponed that steps have already been taken towards implementation, including procurement of a comprehensive medical insurance cover for staff and continued remittance of statutory deductions. The Respondents maintain that promotions and salary adjustments are subject to budgetary constraints, statutory guidelines, and phased implementation, and deny any deliberate discrimination. 27.The Respondents further state that the Applicants resumed duty on 17th February 2025 and have since been reinstated to the payroll. They contend that the notices and the issues raised in the application have therefore been overtaken by events, rendering the application moot. 28.In response to the challenge to Dr Omuhaka’ s authority, it is averred that he was formally appointed as County Secretary and Head of Public Service on 5th December 2024, and he is duly authorized to swear affidavits on behalf of the Respondents. 29.In conclusion, the Respondents assert that the application is frivolous, vexatious, devoid of merit, and an abuse of the court process and urge the Court to dismiss the same with costs. III.Submissions 30.The Applicants’ counsel submitted globally in support of the application and challenged the removal of the Applicants from the payroll and the stoppage of their salaries from 21st August 2024, as well as the issuance of the notices dated 21st August 2024. 31.It is submitted that actions by the Respondents amounted to constructive dismissal and violated the Applicants’ constitutional rights under Articles 25, 41, 43, 47 and 50 of the Constitution, as well as statutory protections under the Employment Act. 32.Counsel raised a procedural issue concerning the validity of the Respondents’ replying affidavit. It is argued that the same was sworn by a person lacking the legal authority as he allegedly held office irregularly and without proper gazettement. Citing Republic v Chengo & 2 others [2017] KESC 15 (KLR) counsel submitted that a Gazette Notice is essential evidence of lawful appointment and authority. Consequently, it is contended that the filed affidavit is a nullity and should be struck out effectively rendering the application unopposed. Counsel further cited Gideon Sitelu Konchellah v Julius Lekakeny Ole Sunkuli & 2 others [2018] eKLR submitting that even in unopposed applications, the court must still be satisfied that the claim is meritorious. 33.Further, it is submitted that the Respondents’ actions were illegal, ultra vires, and procedurally unfair. It is submitted that the Applicants’ removal from the payroll and issuance of the impugned notices were undertaken without lawful authority, in that disciplinary control over county staff is vested in the relevant County Public Service Board, and no delegation of that duty was demonstrated. Further, counsel contended that the actions violated the Applicants’ right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution and the right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution in that no notice was issued, hearing, or reasons were provided. 34.In support of the principles of legality and rationality, counsel relied on Republic v Disciplinary & Ethics Committee & Medical Practitioners & Dentists Council; Donald Oyatsi (Ex Parte) [2020] KEHC 3139 (KLR), wherein the court emphasized that public power must be exercised lawfully, rationally, and in accordance with due process. It is argued that the decision and action by the Respondents lacked any rational connection to a lawful purpose and were therefore arbitrary and invalid under Section 7(2)(i) of the Fair Administrative Action Act. 35.The counsel for the Applicants further submitted that the impugned decisions fail the test of reasonableness and proportionality. It is argued that no reasonable authority, properly directing itself, would have issued the notices after the lapse of the period of responses or summarily removed employees from payroll without due process. It is contended that the actions were disproportionate to any legitimate aim and failed to balance competing interests, as articulated in Suchan Investment Limited v Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 3 others [2016] KECA 729 (KLR). 36.On legitimate expectation, the Applicants counsel asserted that the RTWF and the promotion framework constituted clear, lawful, and binding undertakings, which created a legitimate expectation that they would be implemented. Counsel cited Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2014] eKLR, wherein the Supreme Court set out the elements of legitimate expectation to include – clarity of representation, reasonableness, and lawfulness. It is argued for the Applicants that these elements are satisfied and that the Respondents should be compelled, through an order of mandamus, to honour the agreement. Counsel further cited Republic v Principle Secretary, Ministry of Transport, Housing and Urban Development; Ex parte Soweto Residents Forum CBO [2019] eKLR, which confirmed a two-step test - Whether a legitimate expectation was created; and, Whether it is legitimate and enforceable – in support of the assertion that a legitimate expectation was created and enforceable in the circumstances of this matter. 37.It is submitted for the Applicants that the actions by the Respondents’ were both procedurally and substantively unfair, particularly as they punished the Applicants for participating in a lawful strike. It is emphasized that the strike was not declared illegal and that the Respondents are estopped from asserting otherwise. 38.In conclusion, the counsel for the Applicants urged the Court to find that the actions taken by that the Respondents’ were unconstitutional, illegal, irrational, and procedurally wrong, and grant the judicial review orders sought with costs. 39.On the other hand, the counsel for Respondents submitted on three issues – Whether the issuance of notice to show cause and the removal of the ‘respondents’ (sic)(Applicants) from the payroll were unlawful; Whether the respondents failed to implement Return to Work Formula; and, Whether the exparte applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought. 40.On the question of whether the industrial action undertaken by the Applicants on 1st August 2024 was lawful and protected, counsel contends that although the right to strike is guaranteed under the Constitution, that right is not absolute and is subject to limitation under Article 24 of the Constitution. It is argued that pursuant to Sections 78(1)(f) & 81(3) of the Labour Relations Act strikes in essential services are expressly prohibited and that the health sector falls within such essential services since interruption thereof endangers life and public health. In support of this position, counsel cited International Labour Organization principles wherein essential services are defined as those services whose interruption would endanger life or health. Counsel cited County Government of Kisii v Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists & Dentists Union & Another [2024] eKLR wherein the Court held that prohibition of strikes in the health sector is a reasonable and justifiable limitation of the right to strike. 41.Counsel further cited County Government of Marsabit v Kenya Union of Clinical Officers (KUCO) & Another [2025] eKLR, wherein the Court emphasized that the right to strike is not among the non-derogable rights and may be limited, particularly in essential services, and that failure to report a dispute for conciliation renders a strike unprotected. It is therefore submitted that the Applicants’ participation in the strike, in the absence of compliance with statutory procedures and in disregard of an existing RTWF rendered the industrial action unlawful and unprotected. 42.On the propriety of the notices issued on 21st August 2024, for the Respondents it is submitted that the Applicants’ absence from duty constituted gross misconduct within the meaning of Section 44(4)(a) of the Employment Act, that allows summary dismissal where an employee is absented from work without lawful cause. It is submitted that the disciplinary process complied with Sections 41 & 43 of the Employment Act, in that the Applicants were accorded fair hearing and that the employer has proved valid reason(s) for termination in the unauthorised and unlawful absence from duty as admitted by the Applicants. 43.The Respondents maintain that the Applicants were issued with show cause letters, given 14 days to respond, and given an opportunity to be heard, thereby satisfying procedural fairness. citing CMC Aviation Limited v Mohammed Noor [2015] eKLR, it is submitted for the Respondents that summary dismissal is justified where an employee fundamentally breaches contractual obligations. In Chege v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited [2025] KEELRC 2190 (KLR), counsel stated that the Court underscored that an employer’s decision must be grounded on reasonable and sufficient cause. It is re-emphasized that the Respondents complied with the law as stated above. 44.Concerning the withholding of salaries, the Respondents invoked the principle of “no work, no pay” submitting that the Applicants were not entitled to remuneration during the period that they unlawfully absented themselves from duty. Counsel cited Section 79(6) of the Labour Relations Act wherein it is provided that an employer is not obligated to remunerate an employee for services not rendered during a strike or lock-out, as well as Section 19(1)(c) of the Employment Act which allows salary deductions for absence without lawful cause. 45.Counsel for the Respondents further relied on Kenya National Union of Nurses v Lamu County Public Service Board & 2 Others [2024] eKLR wherein the Court held that withholding salaries during an unprotected strike is lawful; and, Erick Mutembei Mbaya v Medivet Products Limited [2021] eKLR and Red Lands Roses Limited v Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union [2020] eKLR, wherein it was affirmed in both decisions that employees who participate in unprotected strikes are not entitled to wages. It is therefore submitted that the removal of the Applicants from the payroll and the withholding of their salaries was lawful and consistent with statutory provisions. 46.On whether the Respondents failed to implement the RTWF dated 8th May 2024, it is denied that the Respondents frustrated the same. It is argued that the implementation was subject to conditions precedent including, budgetary allocations, approvals from the National Government, and the presence of a properly constituted County Public Service Board. It is submitted that at the material time, the Board had been dissolved and was therefore incapable of performing its statutory functions, rendering immediate implementation of the RTWF impossible. It is further submitted that financial constraints including, delays in exchequer releases and budgetary limitations as reflected in the availed County Fiscal Strategy Paper hindered implementation of the same. The Respondents maintain that once these constraints were resolved, steps towards implementation commenced including, the provision of medical cover and the reconstitution of the Board, hence demonstrating good faith and progressive compliance. Therefore, it is argued that there was neither refusal nor neglect but only a lawful delay occasioned by circumstances beyond control of the Respondent. 47.On the orders and reliefs sought, it is submitted for the Respondents that the application has been overtaken by events and is now moot. It is argued that the Applicants have since resumed duty, their suspensions have been lifted, and they have been reinstated into the payroll. In support of the doctrine of mootness, counsel relied on Nthuli & 2 Others v Hackett & 2 Others [2024] KEHC 6990 KLR, wherein the Court held that a matter is moot where it has no practical significance, and National Assembly of Kenya & Another v Institute for Social Accountability & 8 Others [2017] eKLR, wherein the Court of Appeal emphasized that courts should not determine academic or hypothetical disputes. Counsel also cited Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 2 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others [2020] eKLR, which affirmed that courts will not act in vain where no practical relief can issue. 48.Counsel for the Respondent’s concluded that the Applicants engaged in an unlawful and unprotected strike in contravention of the Labour Relations Act, thereby justifying the issuance of the notices and the withholding of salaries under the principle of “no work, no pay.” It was submitted that the RTWF was not ignored but was implemented progressively once legal and financial prerequisites were met and that the instant application has been rendered moot and overtaken by subsequent events as submitted above. IV.Analysis & Determination 49.The factual background of this matter has been set out by the parties in their pleadings and dispositions and their respective counsel in the submissions as per the summary in the preceding part of this judgment. The gist of the application is that the Applicants are seeking for orders of certiorari to quash show-cause letters/notices issued to them, prohibition to restrain their implementation, and mandamus to compel implementation of a RTWF agreement executed on 8th May 2024, as set out in the introductory part of this judgment. 50.In my considered view, the issue for determination by the court is – Whether the Applicants have demonstrated a case for the issuance of orders of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus as prayed in the application. 51.While the Applicants assert that they are entitled to the orders sought, the respondents contend that the application is overtaken by events as the impugned notices have since been suspended, after the Applicants resumed duty and were returned to the payroll and the implementation of the RTWF commenced. 52.Essentially, judicial review is supervisory in character. Where it is shown that the decision-maker acted within the confines of the law and observed due process, a court may not interfere with the outcome, unless the decision is unlawful. 53.It is not in dispute that the Applicants indeed went on strike on 1st August 2024, on what they term an option of the last resort, following the failure by the Respondents to implement the RTWF agreement between the parties and the interested party and the Roadmap Promotion of doctors and pharmacists executed on 22nd September 2023. 54.It was after the Applicants proceeded on strike that the Chief Officer of Public Service issued the notices dated 21st August 2024 to the Applicants for their absence from work without leave or reasonable cause. 55.Under Section 45 of the County Governments Act, the county chief officer shall be the authorised officer in respect of the exercise of delegated power in a specific department. The chief officer in charge of public service, the 5th Respondent herein, is the authorized officer and head of administration for the department of human resource management; dealing with staff welfare, and public service delivery, managing performance and discipline, coordinating county administrative Structures, And Ensuring Staff Adhere to ethical conduct in the County Government of Kakamega. The Applicants have not denied their absence from work during the stated period and, in exercise of his functions, the 5th Respondent, issued the show-cause letters aforementioned, inviting the Applicants to show-cause why disciplinary action should not be commenced against them. In the same letter, the Applicants were notified on their removal from the payroll. 56.The Respondents assert that the show-cause letters have been overtaken by events and the same have since been suspended. They posit that the Applicants resumed duty and have already been reintegrated into the payroll. 57.The Applicants on their part took the position that they only became aware of the said show-cause letters during the consultative meeting held on 16th September 2024, long after the period required of them to respond had lapsed. They also assert that there is neither proof that they were served with the impugned notices nor proof that the same have since been suspended. 58.The court agrees with the Applicants that there is no evidence of withdrawal or suspension of the said notices. However, the court takes the view that issuing an order of certiorari to quash the said notices would amount to the court interfering with the administrative and managerial functions of the Respondents. The court finds that in issuing the show-cause letters, the Chief officer in charge of Public Service was exercised the statutory mandate provided for in aforecited sections of the County Governments Act. Further, quashing the said notices shall have a repugnant effect or negate the findings and holding of the court that follows hereunder. 59.The court has not been invited to look into the legality or otherwise of the strike that the Applicants took part in. But it is not denied that the Applicants subsequently resumed duty and they were returned to the payroll. Presumably their salaries have been paid since the date of their resumption of duty. 60.From the evidence placed on record by the parties, no further action was taken against the Applicants and the notices thus became moot and of no consequences. Any attempts by the Respondents to revive or act on the said notices can always be challenged by the Applicants in court. 61.On the prayer for an order of prohibition to prohibit any of the Respondents or their agents and or any person from implementing or further implementing or acting on any and or all the contents of the said notices dated 21st August 2024, the court finds that the same has merits as in any event the Respondents have expressed that they do not intent to take any further action based on the said notices. While the legality or otherwise of the strike that triggered the notices is not one of the issues before this court for determination, the court is satisfied that the strike as caused was not lawful. However, the Respondent stated that the said notices were withdrawn. To settle the matter with finality, the court shall quash the same. 62.On the prayer for certiorari to bring to this court and quash the said notices although the court has found that the said letters were issued by the proper authority excising the legal mandate provided by the law. 63.On the prayer for an order of mandamus directing the Respondents and the Interested Party to proceed without any further delay and implement the terms and all conditions of the RTWF mutually negotiated, agreed upon, and executed on 8th May 2024, the court orders and directs that the same be implemented without further delay. The Respondents stated that they have commenced the implementation of the RTWF and framework implementation matrix, in that they procured a medical cover under TRANSNEP under Jubilee Health Insurance for all staff in the county. The Respondents further stated that promotions and salary adjustments are subject to budgetary ceiling, the guidelines by the Salaries and Remuneration Commission and phased implementation. Again, the court directs that the same be implemented. 64.From the evidence placed before the court there is evidence that the Respondents have commenced implementation of the RTWF based on the Applicants’ own admission that promotions have been undertaken for some of the Applicants despite their apparent dissatisfaction. Additionally, a medical scheme was procured for all county staff as per the RTWF. 65.In the circumstances, since there is clearly partial implementation of the RTWF, the parties are encouraged to discuss and resolve the promotions and related issues and come up with an acceptable roadmap on the same if there are any outstanding issues at this point. 66.Clearly and evidently, the strike called and undertaken by the Applicants did not follow the proper and laid down procedure and the same was thus unlawful. The Applicants are professionals in the essential service and yet went on strike without referring the matter for conciliation as provided for in law before going in strike. V.Orders 72.The court finds and holds –a.Prayer 1 is denied as the strike called and undertaken by the Applicants did not comply with the law.b.The Respondents by themselves, their agents, servants, or others howsoever are prohibited from taking any further action against the Applicants based on the notices dated 21st August 2024 as the same were not properly served upon the Applicants and, in any event, the same are now moot.c.Consequently, the notices dated 21st August 2024 are hereby quashed.d.The Respondents and the interested party are hereby ordered and directed to implement the Return to Work Formula agreed on 8th May 2024 and the Roadmap for promotion of doctors, pharmacists, and Dentists as agreed on 22nd September 2023.e.That the compliance with order (d) above or any part thereof remaining be implemented within 90 days of this judgment.f.Costs to the Applicants. DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED, AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.……………………DAVID NDERITUJUDGE