Kenya Universities Staff Union v Egerton University & another (Petition 88 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 80 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that public universities cannot cut unionised staff salaries unilaterally, even during a financial crisis—collective bargaining must come first.
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 Notice to All Staff Members, dated May 13, 2020, issued by the 1st Respondent, resulted in constitutional, statutory and contractual violations, as claimed by the Petitioner
- 2.whether the prayers sought are merited
Key legal issues
#Whether unilateral salary reduction by public university violated collective bargaining rights
Yes - the Notice was unconstitutional, null and void as it bypassed IPUCCF and existing collective bargaining structures
Salary variation is a collective bargaining subject. The employer was bound by the Recognition Agreement and CBA with the union through IPUCCF. Its Management Board could not unilaterally resolve a 40% pay cut; consultations with chapter representatives outside the CBA structures did not qualify as social dialogue under the Tripartite MOU, and the representatives lacked mandate to negotiate. Unilateral action risked disturbing industrial harmony across public universities.
Whether financial hardship justified unilateral variation
No - financial challenges had to be addressed through collective bargaining structures
While the 1st Respondent faced genuine liquidity problems including reduced capitation, deficits and frozen accounts, the law obliged it to act through existing collective bargaining mechanisms rather than by a Management Board resolution.
Legal principles established
#- Where a collective mechanism exists for variation of terms and conditions of service of unionisable staff, that mechanism must be followed at all times
- Unilateral reduction of salaries of unionisable employees violates the constitutional right to collective bargaining under Article 41
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition against the 2nd Respondent shall be marked as withdrawn, with no order on the costs
- 2.The Notice issued by the 1st Respondent to Staff, dated May 13, 2020 on salary reduction, is declared unconstitutional, null and void
- 3.A permanent injunction is granted restraining the 1st Respondent from implementing the said Notice without involvement of the Petitioner, within the existing collective bargaining structures
- 4.Costs to the Petitioner payable by the 1st Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 10, 41, 47 and 232 of the Constitution; Section 10(5) of the Employment Act
Relief refused
#Declaration of infringement under Articles 10, 47 and 232 not expressly granted; relief granted only on Article 41
The Court grounded its holding on the violation of the right to collective bargaining; no separate declarations under the other articles were made in the final orders
Relief against the 2nd Respondent
Petition withdrawn by the Petitioner
Costs
Costs to the Petitioner payable by the 1st Respondent; no order on costs as regards the 2nd Respondent.
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.
Where there exists a collective mechanism for variation of terms and conditions of service, of unionisable staff, that mechanism must be followed at all times.
The Petition against the 2nd Respondent shall be marked as withdrawn, with no order on the costs.
The Notice issued by the 1st Respondent to Staff, dated May 13, 2020 on salary reduction, is declared unconstitutional, null and void.
A permanent injunction is granted restraining the 1st Respondent by itself, Agents or Whomsoever acting on behalf of the 1st Respondent, from implementing the said Notice, without involvement of the Petitioner, within the existing collective bargaining structures.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Universities Staff Union v Egerton University & another (Petition 88 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 80 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Petition E005 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/80/eng@2024-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.