Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Notice of motion dated 19th June 2023)· [2024] KEELRC 902 (KLR)

Kenya Universities Staff Union, Egerton University Branch v Egerton University & 2 others; Kenya Universities Staff Union (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E026 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 902 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 April 2024
7,933 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~32 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court refused to stop Egerton University's planned redundancy, saying the union should first have sat down and consulted with the employer.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, the Egerton University Branch of the Kenya Universities Staff Union, moved the court by notice of motion dated 19th June 2023 seeking temporary injunctions restraining Egerton University and others from proceeding with a redundancy process pursuant to a notice of intention to declare redundancy issued to all staff on 21st December 2022. The Claimant argued that the notice did not comply with section 40(1) of the Employment Act as it was not served on the union or the County Labour Officer, did not indicate the extent of the redundancy, and that the University had unilaterally developed a redundancy score sheet containing subjective and unlawful parameters, including health status. The Respondents opposed, asserting dire financial constraints (debts exceeding Kshs 9 billion), an ongoing consultative process with the unions, and that the notice was merely an intention to declare redundancy, not a redundancy notice under section 40, making the application premature. They also challenged the Claimant's locus standi, contending redundancy matters belonged to the union's National Office under the KUSU Constitution and the recognition agreement. The court framed two issues: locus and merit. It held the registered branch had locus standi, following its earlier decision in the Republic v Registrar of Trade Unions matter and LSK Nairobi Branch v Malindi LSK. On merit, it found the 21st December 2022 notice was not a section 40 redundancy notice but an invitation to consult; since the applicants declined the invitation to engage, the application was premature and unmerited. The court declined the injunction, directed the parties to continue engaging, and awarded costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant branch has locus standi to file the suit on behalf of its members

Holding

The applicants, being a registered branch of the union, have locus standi to institute the claim/application

Reasoning

The court relied on its own prior decision (Republic v Registrar of Trade Unions Ex Parte UASU Egerton University Chapter) and LSK Nairobi Branch v Malindi LSK, which relied on the Mumo Matemo case on the enlarged scope of locus standi under Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution. The court reaffirmed that a registered branch chapter of a union may institute proceedings on its own motion.

p. 14
02

Whether the notice of 21st December 2022 was a redundancy notice under section 40 of the Employment Act and whether the injunction should issue

Holding

The notice was only a notice of intention to declare redundancy, not a redundancy notice under section 40; the application was premature because the applicants declined the invitation to consult and the court declined to grant the injunction

Reasoning

The court examined the notice of 21st December 2022 and found it contained no date of termination and no indication of the extent of the redundancy; it was an invitation to negotiate. Section 40 envisages a notice with a definite time frame served on the union and the labour office. Since the applicants declined the invite to engage, they failed to adhere to the procedures envisaged under section 40 of the Employment Act and filed prematurely.

p. 15

Legal principles established

#
  • A registered branch of a trade union has locus standi to institute proceedings on its own motion
  • A notice of intention to declare redundancy is not the redundancy notice contemplated by section 40 of the Employment Act; upon such notice of intention, parties must engage in consultation before the process matures

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is found unmerited and the orders sought (temporary injunction restraining the redundancy process) are declined
  2. 2.The parties are asked to continue engaging with a view of resolving the matter
  3. 3.Costs in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act (not expressly cited as a jurisdictional provision in the ruling)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Universities Staff Union, Egerton University Branch v Egerton University & 2 others; Kenya Universities Staff Union (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E026 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 902 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of motion dated 19th June 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/902/eng@2024-04-23

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