David & 3 others v Migori County Public Service Board & another (Petition E053 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 14738 (KLR) (30 March 2022) (Judgment)
- Court
- Employment & Labour Relations Court
- Case number
- 14738
- Citation
- [2022] KEELRC 14738 (KLR)
- Decided
- 30 March 2022
The amendments to the Urban Areas and Cities Act, 2019, are not retrospective and could not adversely affect the petitioners' existing rights.
Facts
The petitioners were appointed as Municipal Managers of the County Government of Migori under the Urban Areas and Cities Act, 2019. The 1st Respondent (County Public Service Board) issued a letter deeming their services dismissed on 28th March, 2019, by operation of the Act. The petitioners seek a declaration that this decision is unlawful and a violation of their rights.
Issues
- Whether the interpretation of the Amended Urban Areas and Cities Act, 2019, translates to termination of the petitioners' services by operations of law.
- Whether the 1st Respondent's decision to deem the petitioners' services dismissed is arbitrary, unilateral, and an unreasonable change in their terms of service, thus amounting to unfair labour practices and being unconstitutional.
Reasoning
The court held that the amendments to the Act are prospective and not retrospective, as there are no transitional clauses or compensation mechanisms provided for in the Act. The court also distinguished the case of Magerer Langat & another v Paul Kiprono Chepkwony, stating that the holding in that case is persuasive but not binding.
Outcome
The petitioners' claims are dismissed.
Authorities cited
Legislation (1)
- Urban Areas and Cities Act, 2019
Cases cited (3)
- Union of India & Anr v D.P. Singh & Ors
- Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v. Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others SC Application No. 2 of 2011
- Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee v. Union of India
Loading judgment…