Itolondo v Kenyatta University (Petition E098 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 484 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 petition is an abuse of court process as a replica of ELRC Petition No. E173 of 2022 filed by UASU
- 2.Whether the petitioner had locus to pursue a collective grievance belonging to the union
- 3.Whether the petition contravened the dispute resolution mechanism in the collective agreement (avoidance principle)
- 4.Whether the respondent violated Articles 3, 10, 30, 41, 43 and 232 of the Constitution by unilaterally varying the 2013-2017 CBA
Key legal issues
#Abuse of court process and duplicative litigation
The petition was an abuse of process because it challenged the same decision on the same grounds as the earlier petition filed by UASU, a body corporate with capacity to sue
The claim concerned a collective grievance affecting all union members, which the union had already ventilated in ELRC Petition No. E173 of 2022 under the recognition agreement and collective agreement. The petitioner, as an individual member, could not justify pursuing the same collective grievance personally. The union's corporate capacity under section 20 of the Labour Relations Act made it the proper party, rendering the individual petition duplicative and abusive.
Exhaustion of contractual dispute resolution mechanism (avoidance principle)
The petition was premature because the petitioner disregarded the collective agreement's dispute resolution mechanism, including the Joint Negotiating Committee and arbitration
Clause 3 of the collective agreement vested interpretation in the Joint Negotiating Committee subject to arbitration by the ELRC. The petitioner said nothing about the Joint Negotiating Committee's role and did not exhibit the recognition agreement or the complete collective agreement. The court found the petition premature and abusive in circumstances where the union had already filed a petition over the same collective dispute.
Whether the alleged constitutional violations were established
The alleged violations of the Bill of Rights were not established because the dispute was properly covered by the parties' agreements on dispute resolution
The court declined to reach the merits of the impugned memo and performance contracts, holding that the dispute was a collective grievance affecting all union members, best ventilated by the union under the agreements between the parties and applicable law. Leadership wrangles in the union did not suspend the agreed dispute resolution framework, and social dialogue included expeditious resolution of such disputes.
Legal principles established
#- A union, as a body corporate, is best placed to sue over collective grievances affecting its members, and an individual member cannot duplicate such a suit
- The avoidance principle requires a party to exhaust dispute resolution mechanisms in a collective agreement before resorting to constitutional litigation
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the respondent against the petitioner for dismissal of the petition
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the proceedings
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22(2)(b) and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 read together with Part II, section 4(2)(ii) of Legal Notice 117 of 2013 (invoked by the petitioner for standing)
Relief refused
#Declarations that the respondent violated Articles 3, 10, 30, 41, 43 and 232 of the Constitution
The alleged violation of the Bill of Rights was not established; the dispute is a collective grievance covered by the collective agreement's dispute resolution mechanism
Quashing of the memo dated 08.09.2022 and the quarterly performance contracts
Court declined to delve into the merits because the dispute is a collective grievance best ventilated by the union, which had already filed a petition
Permanent stoppage of implementation of the 3rd and 4th teaching units
Petition dismissed as an abuse of process and premature
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the proceedings
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.
In conclusion judgment is hereby entered for the respondent against the petitioner for dismissal of the petition with orders each party to bear own costs of the proceedings.
The union is a body corporate per section 20 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007 with capacity to sue and be sued in its name.
the Court finds that the instant petition is indeed an abuse of Court process in view of the earlier petition filed to challenge the impugned decision
It appears to the Court that the petition is premature besides being abusive of due process of the court in the circumstances that, as already found, the union has already filed a petition to ventilate the collective dispute in issue.
The alleged violation of the Bill of Rights is found not established in the circumstances of the instant petition.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers inconsistently to the impugned memo date
Petition states the relief sought in prayer (c) refers to '2013/2027 2013-2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement', an apparent typographical inconsistency
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) v Kenyatta University (Petition E173 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2443 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2443 (KLR)18 Sept 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Itolondo v Kenyatta University (Petition E098 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 484 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Petition (Nairobi), filed 01.07.2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/484/eng@2025-02-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.