Dominic Murage & 9 others v Universities Academic Staff Union & 2 others [2021] KEELRC 2350 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court let excluded UASU members back into union elections by extending nominations instead of halting the whole process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimants established a prima facie case and irreparable injury warranting interim relief
Yes – locking the claimants out of the nomination process before their chapter elections violated their rights under Article 41 and the Labour Relations Act, and would disenfranchise them for five years.
The court found that the 2nd respondent chapter elections were scheduled for 16th June, 2021, after nominations for national offices closed on 31st May, 2021. As members cleared to contest chapter positions, the claimants would be unable to become delegates, voters or candidates at the National Delegates Conference. The court held this violated their constitutional and legal rights and stood to disenfranchise them for the next five years.
Balance of convenience
Balance of convenience favours the claimants; no particularised inconvenience to the union was shown to outweigh the disenfranchisement of the largest chapter.
The 1st respondent only urged that election materials had been prepared and ballot papers would go to waste, without particularising the inconvenience of extending nomination timelines. Against that, the 2nd respondent is the largest branch with over 1,500 members; locking out such a branch would disenfranchise its membership from constituting the new national office, defeating the purpose of unionisation under the LRA.
Whether the grant of conservatory relief enhances constitutional values and avoids rendering the suit nugatory
Yes – the relief enhances Article 41 constitutional values, and without it the substratum of the claim would be spent.
Applying the conservatory-order principles from Board of Management of Uhuru Secondary School, the court found the reliefs would enhance the constitutional values of Article 41 protecting trade union participation rights, and if not granted the claim and application would be rendered nugatory because the nomination and election processes would have concluded without the claimants.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must sequentially establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience
- It would defeat the purpose of unionisation to lock out potential voters and candidates at any level of a trade union's elections
Court orders
#- 1.Aware of the Ruling delivered in Cause No. E188 of 2021 – Dominic Murage & 4 others v Richard M Bosire & 6 others [2021] eKLR and the directions that the 2nd respondent elections be held on 16th June, 2021
- 2.Notice dated 17th May, 2021 or any other notice or process including nominations or any other process relating to the elections of the national officials of the 1st respondent shall open for the next five (5) calendar days
- 3.Notices for national elections for the 1st respondent shall simultaneously issue to be held on the 14th day after this date/today
- 4.Costs awarded to the claimants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 41 of the Constitution, 2010; section 34 of the Labour Relations Act; section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dominic Murage & 9 others v Universities Academic Staff Union & 2 others [2021] KEELRC 2350 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause (application dated 19th May, 2021) – referenced against Cause No. E188 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2350/eng@2021-06-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.