Lilian Karanja, Nixon Cheruiyot, Wachira Mwangi, Dominic Kiplangat, Lydia Waweru, Sarah Kangara, Peter Irungu, Davis Mwaura, Vivian Yegon, Collins Kipkoech, Nancy Munyao, Timothy Njoroge, Tabitha Kibithe, Nancy Jeruto, Kelvin Kemboi, Nicholas Kiplagat, Benard Chelule, Rose Jepkoech, Samuel Kosgey, Ann Kamau Jackson, Jane Kihuna, Peris Kihara, Catherine Mumbi Mugo, Michelle Kariuki, Fannuel Kiprotich, Cyrus Njoau, Jackline Njeri Kibui, Frankline Kipkurui Cheruiyot, Edith Njeri Ndungu, Florence Wanjiku Karanja, Joan Kandie, Joyce Nyambura Njoroge, George Karanja Kariuki, James Kipchumba Kabirer, Steve Mwangi, Dorcas Njeri Wambui, Kennedy Mungai, Njuguna Rahab Wambui, Ann Wangui Muya, Fred Bore Ruttoh, Simon Kamau, Rashid Anyanje Juma, Edwin Keter Kibet, Paul Kamau, Carol Wanjiru Gathura, Agnes Mwangi, Rose Kimungen , Agenes Chepkoskei, David Karanja, Andrew Karia, John Migwi Mwaniki, Veronica Gachambi, Alex Kuria, James Cherono, Mugo Njoroge, Levycheruiyot Langa [2017] KEELRC 1938 (KLR)
Full Case Text
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU
Petition No. 7 Of 2017
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 10, 27, 28, 41, 50, 176, 179 AND 236 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 27, 28, 41 AND 50 OF THE CONSTITUTION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS ACT, 2012
AND
IN THE MATTER OF COMPULSORY LEAVE IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONERS
Between
LILIAN KARANJA 1ST PETITIONER
NIXON CHERUIYOT 2ND PETITIONER
WACHIRA MWANGI 3RD PETITIONER
DOMINIC KIPLANGAT 4TH PETITIONER
LYDIA WAWERU 5TH PETITIONER
SARAH KANGARA 6TH PETITIONER
PETER IRUNGU 7TH PETITIONER
DAVIS MWAURA 8TH PETITIONER
VIVIAN YEGON 9TH PETITIONER
COLLINS KIPKOECH 10TH PETITIONER
NANCY MUNYAO 11TH PETITIONER
TIMOTHY NJOROGE 12th PETITIONER
TABITHA KIBITHE 13th PETITIONER
NANCY JERUTO 14th PETITIONER
KELVIN KEMBOI 15th PETITIONER
NICHOLAS KIPLAGAT 16th PETITIONER
BENARD CHELULE 17th PETITIONER
ROSE JEPKOECH 18th PETITIONER
SAMUEL KOSGEY 19th PETITIONER
ANN KAMAU JACKSON 20th PETITIONER
JANE KIHUNA 21st PETITIONER
PERIS KIHARA 22nd PETITIONER
CATHERINE MUMBI MUGO 23rd PETITIONER
MICHELLE KARIUKI 24th PETITIONER
FANNUEL KIPROTICH 25th PETITIONER
CYRUS NJOAU 26th PETITIONER
JACKLINE NJERI KIBUI 27th PETITIONER
FRANKLINE KIPKURUI CHERUIYOT 28th PETITIONER
EDITH NJERI NDUNGU 29th PETITIONER
FLORENCE WANJIKU KARANJA 30th PETITIONER
JOAN KANDIE 31st PETITIONER
JOYCE NYAMBURA NJOROGE 32nd PETITIONER
GEORGE KARANJA KARIUKI 33rd PETITIONER
JAMES KIPCHUMBA KABIRER 34th PETITIONER
STEVE MWANGI 35th PETITIONER
DORCAS NJERI WAMBUI 36th PETITIONER
KENNEDY MUNGAI 37th PETITIONER
NJUGUNA RAHAB WAMBUI 38th PETITIONER
ANN WANGUI MUYA 39th PETITIONER
FRED BORE RUTTOH 40th PETITIONER
SIMON KAMAU 41st PETITIONER
RASHID ANYANJE JUMA 42nd PETITIONER
EDWIN KETER KIBET 43rd PETITIONER
PAUL KAMAU 44th PETITIONER
CAROL WANJIRU GATHURA 45th PETITIONER
AGNES MWANGI 46th PETITIONER
ROSE KIMUNGEN 47th PETITIONER
AGENES CHEPKOSKEI 48th PETITIONER
DAVID KARANJA 49th PETITIONER
ANDREW KARIA 50th PETITIONER
JOHN MIGWI MWANIKI 51st PETITIONER
VERONICA GACHAMBI 52nd PETITIONER
ALEX KURIA 53rd PETITIONER
JAMES CHERONO 54th PETITIONER
MUGO NJOROGE 55th PETITIONER
LEVYCHERUIYOT LANGAT 56th PETITIONER
ABEL MUNGAI CHEGE 57th PETITIONER
IBRAHIM MWANGI MACHARIA 58th PETITIONER
EDWARD OTIENO OMONDI 59th PETITIONER
NEWTON MWAURA MPESA 60th PETITIONER
GITONGA DAVID KINYANJUI 61st PETITIONER
KENNEDY ANUNDA ROGITO 62nd PETITIONER
MAGDALINE KAMAU 63rd PETITIONER
OBED MWAURA 64th PETITIONER
FRANCIS MAATHAI KINGORI 65th PETITIONER
JAMES MWANGI NDEGWA 66th PETITIONER
DAVID WAITHAKA KIMANI 67th PETITIONER
ZIPPORAH NYAMOITA GWAKO 68th PETITIONER
MARY W. GACHIO 69th PETITIONER
JOHN KARIUKI WAINAINA 70th PETITIONER
MAGARET KIRORI 71st PETITIONER
CATHERINE MUIRURI 72nd PETITIONER
BENARD KITUR 73rd PETITIONER
KELVIN VIOLET CHACHA 74th PETITIONER
STANLEY ROTICH 75th PETITIONER
RUTH MURUGI 76th PETITIONER
CAROL KIBUI 77th PETITIONER
ALICE CHEROP TOO 78th PETITIONER
ROSE LUCY WANJIKU 79th PETITIONER
SAMMY KIRAGU NDERITU 80th PETITIONER
CHERUIYOT KANGONGO 81st PETITIONER
JACKLINE KANGONGO 82nd PETITIONER
SELINA NKATHA 83rd PETITIONER
MMBONE NTAGE 84th PETITIONER
BENARD MWATHI MACHARIA 85th PETITIONER
DANIEL NDUNGU NJOAN 86th PETITIONER
ALBERT BOWEN 87th PETITIONER
FRIDA MORAA 88th PETITIONER
ANN KEITANY 89th PETITIONER
GLADYS AMUNDA PKEMEI 90th PETITIONER
GIDEON KIPROTICH KIBET 91st PETITIONER
SILVESTOR TOTONA K 92nd PETITIONER
ROSELYNE CHERUTO 93rd PETITIONER
KIPNGETICH TUEY 94th PETITIONER
SYMON MACHARIA MUCHERU 95th PETITIONER
COLLINS K. TOO 96th PETITIONER
ELISHA MUCHERU 97th PETITIONER
SAMUEL NDEGWA 98th PETITIONER
ELIZABETH WANGUI MWANGI 99th PETITIONER
ZACHARIA MWANGI NJERU 100th PETITIONER
JAMES M. WAWERU 101st PETITIONER
JOYCE SANG 102nd PETITIONER
BEATRICE CHEPKEMOI 103rd PETITIONER
RACHEL WAITHERA KIGOSI 104th PETITIONER
KEN MUNGAI 105th PETITIONER
NJENGAH PATRICK NGANGA 106th PETITIONER
GRACE MBUSIRO CHACHA 107th PETITIONER
KINGORI MWANGI 108th PETITIONER
SAMUEL K. ROTICH 109th PETITIONER
IAN MUKIIRA KINOTI 110th PETITIONER
WINNIE NAMASAKA 112th PETITIONER
PAMELA TANUI M 113th PETITIONER
AGNES KARIUKI 114th PETITIONER
VERONICA GACHAMBI 115th PETITIONER
V
COUNTY SECRETARY,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAKURU 1st RESPONDENT
HON. LEE KINYANJUI,
NAKURU COUNTY 2nd RESPONDENT
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAKURU 3rd RESPONDENT
PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAKURU 4th RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioners moved Court on 31 August 2017 alleging that the Respondents by sending them on compulsory leave through a press release on 28 August 2017 had acted unprocedurally and unconstitutionally, and thus violated their constitutional rights to fair administrative action; equal protection of the law; inherent dignity; fair labour practices; fair hearing; protection from removal from public office without due process, and the national values and principles.
2. Filed at the same time with the Petition was a motion under certificate of urgency seeking orders/conservatory orders staying the letters/action of the Respondents sending the Petitioners on compulsory leave and/or recruitment of other persons as sub-county, deputy sub-county and ward administrators.
3. On 18 September 2017, this Court gave directions as to the determination of the Petition and in this regard, the 1st Respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn Benjamin Njoroge, and the 3rd and 4th Respondents filed Grounds of Opposition to Petition on 14 September 2017.
4. The Secretary of the 4th Respondent, James K. Mbugua filed a replying affidavit on 9 October 2017.
5. The Petitioners filed their written submissions on 29 September 2017, the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed their submissions on 11 October 2017 and the 3rd and 4th Respondents filed their submissions on 10 October 2017.
6. The submissions were highlighted on 19 October 2017.
Whether 3rd and 4th Respondents non suited
7. The 3rd and 4th Respondents contended that they were non-suited or mis-joined to the Petition.
8. That contention has no legal foundation because in terms of section 59 of the County Governments Act, the 3rd Respondent, an organ of the 4th Respondent has been given the function over the county public service, where the Petitioners fall employees employees.
Whether compulsory leave lawful
9. The Petitioners were sent on compulsory leave with pay pending investigations into their recruitment. The compulsory leave was not time bound.
10. Under the common law, a unilateral suspension of an employee with or without pay without a contractual basis would amount to a breach of contract (see McKenzie v Smith (1976) IRLR 345). The compulsory leave was effectively a unilateral suspension.
11. The Court is also alive to the common law position that an employer is under no obligation to give or assign work to an employee. The obligation is to pay wages so long as the employment relationship subsists.
12. An employee who is paid wages may not therefore found a cause of action that he/she has not been given work.
13. In the present case, the Respondents did not cite any contractual authority or basis upon which it was decided to send the Petitioners on compulsory leave.
14. In terms of statutory or legal framework, the Respondents did not equally declare under what particular provisions of law it could anchor its decision to send the Petitioners on compulsory leave.
15. They however contended that the continued stay in the workplace of the Petitioners would have compromised the investigations.
16. Article 236 of the Constitution afford public officers certain protections on before removal from office or on disciplinary process.
17. Article 41 of the Constitution also assure employees of fair labour practices.
18. Legally, it appears that the Respondents did not act lawfully or fairly in the case of the Petitioners as the investigations which precipitated the compulsory leave could as well have been carried out while they were in the workplace.
19. It is also noteworthy that the compulsory leave had no time frame thus legitimately leading the Petitioners to allege violations of their rights as employees/public officers.
20. On the concerns by the Respondents that investigations could not proceed with the Petitioners in the work place, the Court can only observe that an employee is also under an obligation to cooperate with the employer when the employer is carrying out investigations preliminary to a disciplinary process and during the disciplinary process, when it is initiated. Such cooperation is universally implied in all contracts of employment.
Conclusion and Orders
21. The declarations sought by the Petitioners were verbose to the extent of being imprecise. Court orders ought to be precise to ensure that an appropriate remedy striking at the legal injury or wrong established is granted.
22. The Court has also considered that Petitioners have continued to enjoy their remuneration.
23. In lieu of the declarations sought by the Petitioners, the Court orders
(i) A declaration do and is hereby issued that the decision to send the Petitioners on compulsory leave was unlawful.
(ii) The Petitioners to be allowed access to the individual work places forthwith.
(iii) The Petitioners to cooperate with the Respondents in the investigations being conducted which should be completed expeditiously.
24. Considering that there are subsisting employment relationships, the Court orders each party to bear own costs.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nakuru on this 7th day of December 2017.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Petitioners Mr. Kipkoech instructed by Gordon Ogola, Kipkoech & Co. Advocates
For 1st and 2nd Respondents Mr. Karanja instructed by Mirugi Kariuki & Co. Advocates
For 3rd and 4th Respondents Mr. Kimatta instructed by Kimatta & Co. Advocates
Court Assistant Nixon