What began as a lawful struggle for dignity by Early Childhood Development and Education (ECDE) teachers in West Pokot has grown into a defining legal confrontation, testing the very foundations of constitutionalism, public accountability, and obedience to court orders. At the centre of this battle is the Kenya Union of Pre-Primary Education Teachers (KUNOPPET), led by its determined Secretary General, Samwel A. Opiyo, who has now forced the county government back to court over a binding judgment that officials have brazenly ignored.
Acting on behalf of the union and thousands of ECDE teachers it represents, Opiyo moved to court only after all administrative and negotiated avenues had failed. The case, filed as Employment and Labour Relations Court Petition No. E003 of 2024 aimed to address years of neglect, unfair pay, and career stagnation of ECDE teachers by the West Pokot County Government. For KUNOPPET, the courts were never the first option—it was the last resort, a path taken reluctantly but necessarily.
On 26 November 2024, the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Kitale adopted a consent agreement between KUNOPPET and the county government. Once sanctioned, the consent became a binding judgment, enforceable in law, establishing a structured salary framework for ECDE teachers based on qualifications, including both basic pay and allowances. The ruling confirmed what KUNOPPET had long argued: ECDE teachers are professionals entitled to dignity, fair remuneration, and legal protection—not casual labourers overlooked by the system.
For Secretary General Samwel A. Opiyo, the ruling was historic. It validated years of advocacy and shone a light on the vital role of ECDE teachers in shaping Kenya’s future. Yet what followed exposed a more profound crisis: a county government seemingly indifferent to both the courts and its own employees.
To operationalise the judgment, the court issued a decree on 17 September 2025 and a Certificate of Order Against the Government on 6 October 2025, pursuant to the Government Proceedings Act. These documents legally compelled the county to act within a statutory 21-day compliance period. Crucially, they were formally served on the county’s senior officials—the County Secretary, the Chairman of the County Public Service Board, and the Chief Officer for Finance—with official stamps confirming receipt.
Despite full knowledge of these orders, the county remained inert. Salaries were unchanged, arrears remained unpaid, and allowances existed only on paper. For ECDE teachers who had placed their trust in the judicial system, the silence was not merely disappointing—it was unlawful, a direct affront to the rule of law.
It was at this critical juncture that Samwel A. Opiyo escalated the matter back to court. Recognising that the dispute had moved beyond negotiation into outright defiance, he authorised a Judicial Review application seeking an order of mandamus. This legal remedy compels public officers to perform duties imposed on them by law.
The application makes clear that KUNOPPET is not seeking new rights. It demands obedience to an existing court judgment. In its enforcement application, the union asks the court to compel the county officials to implement the approved salary structure: KSh 29,700 for certificate holders, KSh 34,750 for diploma holders, and KSh 54,300 for degree holders, effective from 1 July 2025, together with all accrued arrears. More significantly, it calls for personal accountability, warning that continued defiance would constitute contempt of court and expose officials to fines or imprisonment.
This escalation exposes multiple layers of legal violations. At the most basic level, the county’s inaction violates a court order, striking at the heart of the rule of law. Under Article 10 of the Constitution, all state officers are bound by national values, including legality, accountability, and good governance. Ignoring a binding judgment directly undermines these principles.
Closely related is the offence of contempt of court, which arises when a party, with full knowledge of a court order, willfully disobeys it. In this case, service was acknowledged, time lapsed, and no lawful steps were taken to appeal, review, or stay the judgment. The conduct of the county officials, therefore, exposes them to personal sanctions—not as punishment, but as a mechanism to preserve judicial authority and public trust.
The county’s actions—or lack thereof—also violate Article 41 of the Constitution, which guarantees workers the right to fair labour practices. By refusing to implement a court-approved salary structure, the county perpetuated unfair remuneration practices despite judicial clarity. Article 47, guaranteeing the right to fair administrative action, is equally implicated. Once the judgment was delivered, the county’s role became purely administrative: to implement. Its failure to do so was unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair, particularly as no lawful explanation or process was offered.
The violations extend further to Article 232, which governs values and principles of public service. Accountability, responsiveness, and respect for the law are central to public administration. Defiance of court orders directly undermines these values and erodes public confidence in government institutions. Statutory breaches are also evident. Under the Government Proceedings Act, once a Certificate of Order Against the Government is issued and served, the government entity is legally required to satisfy the decree. Budgetary excuses are not recognised under the law. The county’s failure thus constitutes a clear statutory breach.
The very need for an order of mandamus, sought under the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, confirms a collapse of administrative responsibility. Mandamus is issued only when a public officer neglects or refuses to perform a legal duty. Its invocation in this case is proof of systemic failure. Ethical breaches are also glaring. Public officers are bound to respect the law and serve the public interest. Ignoring court orders brings public office into disrepute and exposes officers to both disciplinary and administrative consequences.
Perhaps most troubling is the broader implication for access to justice under Article 48 of the Constitution. While ECDE teachers, through KUNOPPET and the leadership of Samwel A. Opiyo, successfully accessed the courts and won, deliberate non-compliance risks rendering judicial victories meaningless. By taking the matter back to court, Opiyo has reframed the dispute. This is no longer merely about salaries; it is about whether public officers can flout court orders with impunity, and whether constitutional guarantees hold real power in practice.
As the court prepares to hear the enforcement application, one fact remains undeniable: KUNOPPET, under the leadership of Samwel A. Opiyo, has chosen law over silence, accountability over compromise, and principle over convenience. The outcome will not only affect ECDE teachers in West Pokot but will also send a nationwide message to county governments about the consequences of defying the judiciary. At stake is nothing less than the authority and credibility of the law itself.
By Hillary Muhalya
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
>>> Click here to read more informed opinions on the country’s education landscape
