Kirinyaga University v Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) & another (Cause E038 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 399 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court blocked a university staff union strike because the union skipped required legal steps, and confirmed union branches cannot sue or be sued.
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 claim against the 2nd Respondent is a nullity for want of legal personality.
- 2.Whether the application meets the threshold for grant of interlocutory injunction.
- 3.Whether the orders sought should issue.
Key legal issues
#Legal capacity of a trade union branch
The suit against the 2nd Respondent (the branch) is null and void for want of legal capacity to be sued.
Section 21 of the Labour Relations Act confers body corporate status only on the trade union, not its branches. Branches are registered under section 25 but no provision grants them corporate status. The claimant did not controvert this contention, so the claim against the branch is a nullity.
Validity of the picketing notice
The Picketing Notice dated 6th September 2024 was premature and unlawful as it gave only 4 days' notice contrary to section 76(c), was not copied to the Cabinet Secretary, and preceded conciliation as required by section 76(b).
The notice stated picketing would commence on 10th September 2024, giving only 4 days rather than the 7 days' notice required by section 76(c) of the Labour Relations Act. It was also not addressed or copied to the Cabinet Secretary, and was issued before referring the trade dispute to conciliation under section 76(b). These failures rendered the intended picketing unprotected.
Effect of the Court of Appeal stay order
The stay order in Civil Application No. E418 of 2021 applies to the claimant and the 1st Respondent's members through the Recognition Agreement with IPUCCF, and the notice was contrary to it.
Although the respondents claimed they were not party to the proceedings leading to the stay order, the Recognition Agreement (JN-3) signed between IPUCCF and the 1st Respondent covers the claimant. The stay order halted execution of the ELRC CBA judgments, so issuing the picketing notice on those grievances contravened the stay.
Interlocutory injunction threshold
The applicant established a prima facie case with possibility of success and irreparable harm from disruption of the academic calendar, meeting the Giella v Casman Brown threshold.
Applying Giella v Casman Brown, the court found a prima facie case because the picketing notice breached section 76 of the Labour Relations Act and the Court of Appeal stay order. Disruption of the university's academic calendar would be irreparable loss not compensable by damages, especially if the pending appeal is decided against the respondents. The application therefore met the threshold for an interlocutory injunction.
Legal principles established
#- A branch of a trade union is not a body corporate and lacks capacity to sue or be sued; only the trade union itself has such status under section 21 of the Labour Relations Act.
- A picketing notice served without the 7 days' notice required under section 76(c) of the Labour Relations Act, not addressed or copied to the Cabinet Secretary, and issued before conciliation under section 76(b), is premature and unlawful.
Court orders
#- 1.Order (4) of the Notice of Motion granted - restraining the Respondents, their officials, agents and/or members from taking part in, calling, instigating or inciting others to take part in unprotected strike, picketing, demonstrations or any form of industrial action pending the hearing and determination of the claim herein.
- 2.Order (6) granted - the Respondent to pay the costs of the Application.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes (Labour Relations Act; ELRC Procedure Rules)
Relief refused
#Certification of urgency and service dispensing (order 1)
Ruling delivered; only orders (4) and (6) were granted
Hearing during court vacation (order 2)
Not granted in the disposition
Interim restraint pending hearing of the application (order 3)
Overtaken by events; only order (4) granted
Declaration that the strikes/picketing in the Picketing Notice dated 6th September 2024 are unlawful and unprotected (order 5)
The court found the notice premature and unlawful but did not issue the declaratory order sought
Costs
Costs of the Application to the claimant (order (6) as prayed).
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.
Consequently, I allow the Notice of Motion dated 6th September 2024 by granting order (4) and (6) as prayed.
I agree with the respondents that 2nd respondent lacks legal capacity to be sued.
Consequently, serving a picketing notice in the circumstances highlighted above rendered the notice premature and unlawful.
I am satisfied that the applicant has established a prima facie case with possibility of success.
Disruption of academic calendar would be irreparable loss to the applicant especially if the appeal before the Court of Appeal is decided against the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment describes the stay order as concerning implementation of the 2013-2017 CBA while the application and picketing notice concern the 2017-2021 CBA, creating an apparent internal inconsistency in the subject matter of the stay.
The parties' names do not appear in full; the claimant is identified only contextually (Laikipia University, per station and academic references) and the respondents as UASU and its branch.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kirinyaga University v Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) & another (Cause E038 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 399 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause (Nyeri) - Notice of Motion dated 6th September 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/399/eng@2025-02-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.