KENYA LOCAL GOVERNMENT WORKERS’ UNION v KIKUYU TOWN COUNCIL [2007] KEELRC 6 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Industrial Court ruled that workers dismissed for demanding six months of unpaid salaries must be reinstated with full pay and benefits.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the demand by employees for payment of their salary arrears amounted to misconduct justifying dismissal under Section 17 of the Employment Act
- 2.Whether the suspension and dismissal of the grievants was actuated by victimization on account of their trade union activities and constituted unfair labour practice
- 3.Whether the dismissal was wrongful, unjustified and disproportionate
Key legal issues
#Whether demanding unpaid salary arrears constitutes misconduct under Section 17 of the Employment Act
It does not; delayed payment may reasonably provoke employees to demand their dues.
The Court held that employees are generally not economically well-off and any delay in payment of dues may create justifiable agitation. The grievants assembled at the Council offices to demand accumulated salary arrears of about Kshs. 6 million which was not denied. Selecting them out of the total labour force of 50 employees on unsubstantiated multiple offences was unjustified.
Whether the dismissal of the entire branch officials constituted victimization and unfair labour practice
Yes; the selection of all branch officials for punishment out of 50 employees was actuated by a motive to victimize them for their trade union activities, contrary to Article 13 of the CBA, the Industrial Relations Charter, ILO Conventions 98 and 135 and natural justice.
The Court accepted the Union's submission that the grievants, being the entire branch leadership, were punished purely for ventilating employees' grievances. The Council's written submission was found to be bare allegations without supporting documents. The Court followed its own decision in Cause No. 8 of 2001 on materially identical facts involving the same Union.
Whether the dismissal was proportionate
No; the dismissal was too severe and extremely harsh.
The Court stated that even where management has wide internal administrative powers, they must be exercised judiciously, and punishment must aim at correction rather than vengeance. Dismissal of all branch officials retrospectively was disproportionate to the alleged offences.
Legal principles established
#- A demand by employees for payment of their salary arrears does not amount to misconduct under Section 17 of the Employment Act.
- In a trade dispute arising out of dismissal, the Court may inquire whether the dismissal was mala fide, improperly motivated or an act of victimization.
- Punishment must be commensurate with the offence and must not be vindictive.
Court orders
#- 1.Upheld the Minister's findings and recommendation
- 2.Ordered that the grievants be unconditionally reinstated to their jobs or posts from the date of their dismissal, i.e. 1st July 1998, without loss of their full salaries, benefits, allowances, privileges, seniority and continuity of service
- 3.Ordered the grievants to unconditionally report to the Town Clerk within twenty one (21) days from the date of the award for deployment
- 4.Copies of the award to be served upon the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government, and the Town Clerk, Kikuyu Town Council
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234, Laws of Kenya (dispute referred by the Minister for Labour); award made under Section 15(1)(i) of the Act
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
we uphold the Minister's findings and recommendation and order that the grievants be unconditionally reinstated to their jobs or posts from the date of their dismissal, i.e. on 1st July, 1998, without loss of their full salaries and all other benefits, allowances, privileges, seniority and continuity of service with effect from the said date.
It is ordered further that the grievants shall unconditionally report to the Town Clerk within twenty one (21) days from the date of this award for deployment.
In dealing with a trade dispute arising out of dismissal or termination of service, the Court is entitled to enquire whether the impugned order of the employer has been passed mala fide and with improper motive or is the result of a desire to victimize the employees.
Punishments should be commensurate with the offence and should be given with a view to correction and may be deterrent at times but not vindictive.
the suspension and subsequent dismissal of the grievants was un-called for, legally wrongful and unjustified.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment alternates between 'Mr. Karuga M. Maina' and 'Ms. Kellen Njue, Advocate' as counsel for the Council, describing one as having filed the reply statement and the case as heard ex-parte when the other did not appear.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "KENYA LOCAL GOVERNMENT WORKERS’ UNION v KIKUYU TOWN COUNCIL [2007] KEELRC 6 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2007). Cause No. 69 of 2006. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2007/6/eng@2007-02-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.