Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Africa Metal Works Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 61 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 859 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a union's claim because it failed to prove the sacked workers were actually its members.
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 Claimant union has locus standi to file a suit on behalf of the grievants.
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
Key legal issues
#Locus standi of a trade union without a recognition agreement to sue on behalf of employees
A trade union's standing depends not on a recognition agreement but on proving membership of the employees it purports to represent; here membership was not proved, so the union lacks locus standi
The court distinguished the representational role in court from the collective bargaining role under a recognition agreement, following Modern Soap Factory. It then examined the evidence: only a notice authorising deduction was produced; no deductions under Section 48 were effected; grievants asked for time to decide on joining; and no witnesses or sworn statements confirmed membership. The union thus failed to prove the essential fact of membership.
Burden of proof on the Claimant's allegations of membership and deductions
The Claimant failed to discharge the statutory burden of proof under Section 107 of the Evidence Act; pleadings are not evidence
The court applied Section 107 of the Evidence Act and the Alfred Kioko Muteti decision to hold that whoever asserts facts must prove them by evidence. The Claimant produced no witness or sworn statements from the employees to confirm union membership, and its averments about the Respondent's membership of the FKE minor engineering group and continuing deductions were unsupported.
Entitlement to reliefs for alleged unfair redundancy under Section 40 of the Employment Act
Not reached on the merits; the claim was dismissed because the union could not sustain it, with a note that grievants could sue personally if aggrieved
Having found the union lacked locus standi, the court declined to grant the Section 49 remedies sought (compensation for the unexpired period of fixed-term contracts or payment for the remaining contract period), observing that the terminated employees could pursue their own claims in their own right.
Legal principles established
#- Lack of a recognition agreement does not bar a trade union from representing its members in court, but the union must prove the employees are its members
- A party who alleges a fact bears the burden of proving it with evidence; pleadings alone are not evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed as not proved.
- 2.Each party to meet their own costs of the suit.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over trade disputes (Labour Relations Act, Section 62 invoked by the Claimant)
Relief refused
#Recognition of the union, check-off deductions, signing of a Recognition Agreement, and remedies for alleged unfair redundancy/termination of the grievants
The Claimant failed to prove that the grievants were its members and lacked locus standi; the case was not established on a balance of probability
Costs
Each party will meet their costs of their suit.
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.
Accordingly, the Claimant union lacks locus standi to institute the suit herein on behalf of the terminated employees and even if the grievants had a claim for unfair and illegal redundancy they had a right to file the suits in their own right.
The court having considered the pleadings and submissions and also the citations holds that the claimant has not established its case on balance of probability and so the claim is not proved and is dismissed accordingly.
Each party will meet their costs of their suit.
A recognition agreement is defined under Section 2 of the Labour Relations Act as an agreement in writing made between a trade union and an employer, group of employers or employers' organisation regulating the recognition of the trade union as the representative of the interests of unionisable employees
Issues in the judgment
#Claimant's submissions cite Section 54(2) of the Labour Relations Act for recognition of a trade union representing a simple majority, but the quoted passage is presented inconsistently with the Respondent's assertion that no recognition agreement existed; the court did not resolve whether the union met the simple-majority threshold
The judgment inconsistently refers to the predecessor entity as 'East Africa Works Limited' and 'East African Metal Works Ltd'/'East Africa Metal limited' without clarifying
Claimant's submission refers to a one-month notice issued on '31.11.2018', a date that does not exist
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Africa Metal Works Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 61 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 859 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Memorandum of Claim dated 26th November 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/859/eng@2024-04-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.