Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedELRC Cause (application and Notice of Motion dated 29th January, 2021)· [2021] KEELRC 1483 (KLR)

Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) (Kenyatta University Chapter) v Kenyatta University [2021] KEELRC 1483 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 April 2021
5,426 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~22 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed a university union branch can sue on its own and ordered Karatina University to honour negotiated payments while staff continue working.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, a registered branch of the Universities Staff Union (UASU) representing academic staff at Karatina University, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 29th January 2021 seeking interim injunctions to restrain the respondent from forcing its members to develop modules for blended online teaching without consultation, and from victimising members for non-participation in the vetting of such modules. The respondent filed preliminary objections on the claimant's capacity to sue as a branch, and replying and further affidavits sworn by Prof. Fatuma Chege and Prof. James Kungu arguing that module preparation is basic to a lecturer's job, that most staff had complied willingly, and that the suit was spent, monetary and made in bad faith. The court framed twin issues: capacity and whether interim restraining orders should issue. Dismissing the objections, the court held that under sections 21, 25 and 27 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007, a registered branch is a body corporate with capacity to sue, distinguishing the KNCCI Muranga Chapter case and following Perpetua Mponjiwa. On the merits, applying the Nguruman and Mrao tests, the court found a prima facie case: the memos of 18th May and 29th June 2020 were couched in mandatory terms, leaving no room for consultation on items the CBA 2013-2017 (clause 5(d)) expressly lists as negotiable and remunerated - module writing at KES 120,000 and vetting at KES 4,200. Balancing interests, the court declined a bare injunction and instead ordered the respondent to apply CBA clause 5 terms without disadvantaging any member, while members obey lawful directions pending the main claim, with costs to abide the main suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Capacity of a union branch to sue

Holding

A registered branch of a trade union under section 25 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007 has capacity to sue and be sued in its own name; the preliminary objection was dismissed.

Reasoning

Section 21 of the Labour Relations Act gives registered unions and their branches body corporate status with capacity to sue and be sued. The extract from the Registrar of Trade Unions listed Dr Makokha as Secretary, and without contrary evidence it was prima facie evidence of current officials. The KNCCI Muranga Chapter case was distinguished as foundationally different since it did not engage the Labour Relations Act.

p. 4
02

Prima facie case for interim injunctive relief

Holding

The claimant established a prima facie case because the memo of 18th May 2020 and follow-up memo of 29th June 2020 were mandatory, leaving no room for consultation on an item negotiated and remunerated under the CBA.

Reasoning

The CBA 2013-2017, clause 5(d), lists module writing (KES 120,000) and vetting of modules (KES 4,200) as remunerated items. The respondent's memos directed development of online modules in mandatory terms with an inflexible deadline, negating the CBA. The claimant was justified in seeking consultations on work generally regarded as overtime.

p. 6
03

Irreparable injury and balance of convenience

Holding

Rather than a bare restraining order, the court framed interim orders preserving operations while enforcing CBA terms, since damages/remuneration under the CBA could address the grievance and operations should not stall.

Reasoning

The modules had already been developed and were in use; halting them would stall learning. The court held the appropriate interim relief was reciprocal: the respondent applies CBA clause 5 terms without disadvantaging members, and members obey lawful directions pending the main claim. Remuneration and vetting for quality control were negotiated items to be addressed across the table.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Elected officials of a registered union branch have capacity to sue and be sued
  • A registered collective agreement is binding and enforceable upon registration
  • An employer cannot unilaterally impose negotiated and remunerated items under a CBA without consultation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The respondent's preliminary objections on capacity to sue are dismissed
  2. 2.The respondent, enjoying the modules developed by the claimant's members, shall apply CBA 2013-2017 terms and conditions under clause 5 without placing any claimant member at a disadvantage
  3. 3.On these orders, the claimant members shall oblige lawful directions and instructions of the respondent in the development of modules taking into account Clause 5 of the CBA 2013-2017 pending the hearing of the main claim
  4. 4.Costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) (Kenyatta University Chapter) v Kenyatta University [2021] KEELRC 1483 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELRC Cause (application and Notice of Motion dated 29th January, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1483/eng@2021-04-26

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.