Kenya Union of Journalists v Standard Group PLC; Central Organization of Trade Unions (COTU) (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E372 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1300 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer cannot force employees out of a union; only employees themselves can resign their membership in writing.
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 Respondent's termination/withdrawal of the affected employees' union membership was lawful and procedural
- 2.Whether the alteration of the affected members' terms of service, including reduction of annual leave days from 41 to 30, was lawful
- 3.Whether the Respondent's cessation of deduction and remittance of union dues without the consent of the affected members was unlawful
- 4.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for, including remittance of arrears in trade union dues
Key legal issues
#Whether the employer could unilaterally terminate the affected employees' union membership
The purported withdrawal of the affected members vide the letter dated 27th April 2020 was unlawful, unprocedural, null and void; only those members who voluntarily resigned (Ann Njogu, Elizabeth Kungu, Njambi Mungai, Stephen Ndegwa, Quenter Mbori and Wilson Kinuthia) validly ceased membership
Section 48(6), (7) and (8) of the Labour Relations Act prescribes that resignation from a union is notified by the employee in writing, takes effect the following month, and the employer must forward the notice to the union. Here the employer, not the employees, initiated the withdrawals by its letters of 25/3/2019 and 27/4/2020. This breached Article 41(2) of the Constitution and clause 2 of the CBA which protected freedom of individual choice of membership.
Whether alteration of the affected members' terms of service, including reduction of annual leave from 41 to 30 days, was lawful
The alteration was unlawful, null and void, flowing from the finding that the exclusion from the union was itself unlawful
Since the removal of the employees from union membership was unlawful, the consequential change of their terms from unionisable to management staff terms, including the reduction of annual leave days from 41 to 30 from June 2020, could not stand and was declared null and void.
Whether cessation of deduction and remittance of union dues was lawful
The court ordered the Respondents to resume deduction and remittance of union dues of the affected members to the Claimant
Having found the ejection from membership unlawful, the cessation of check-off dues had no lawful basis; the remedy ordered was reinstatement of the deduction and remittance of the dues of the affected members to the union.
Weight of the CBA governing union membership in the period under review
The CBA of April 2014-31st March 2016 (signed 14/5/2014) was the governing agreement; no signed CBA amending or repealing it was exhibited, and the purported 2018-2020 CBA was not exhibited before the court
Clause 2 of the 2014-2016 CBA committed the parties to freedom of individual choice of union membership and maintenance of membership at a high level. Clause 26 posts included the members whose membership was withdrawn. Absent any exhibited amendment or repeal, its terms governed, and they were consistent with Article 41(2) of the Constitution.
Legal principles established
#- An employer may not unilaterally withdraw an employee's trade union membership; resignation notices under section 48 of the Labour Relations Act must come from the employee, not the employer
- Ejection of members from a union by an employer is illegal and breaches members' rights to join and participate in union activities
- Voluntary withdrawal from union membership by an employee suffices to end membership
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the purported withdrawal of the affected members from the union vide letter dated 27th April 2020 was unlawful, unprocedural, null and void
- 2.Declaration that the alteration of the affected members' terms of service, including reduction of annual leave days from 41 to 30, was unlawful, null and void
- 3.Order that the Respondents proceed to deduct and remit union dues of the affected members to the Claimant
- 4.Respondents to pay costs of the suit
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 (claim concerning union membership, Recognition Agreement and CBA)
Relief refused
#Direction to remit all arrears in trade union dues
The court ordered prospective deduction and remittance of dues but did not make an express order for arrears or interest as prayed; only six members who voluntarily withdrew were treated as validly out of the union
Costs
The respondents will pay costs of this 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.
In the foregoing therefore, this court makes a finding that the purported withdrawal of other afiected members from the union vide letter dated 27th April 2020 was unlawful, un procedural null and void.
It also follows that the alteration of the afiected members terms of service including reduction of their annual leave days from 41 to 30 was unlawful and as such null and void.
An order is issued herein that the respondents proceed to deduct and remit union dues of the afiected members to the claimant. The respondents will pay costs of this suit.
for those who were ejected out of the union by the respondent, that remains illegal and a breach of the member's rights to join and participate in the activities of the union
In respect of these members who withdrew from the union voluntarily this would sufice.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the parties are not stated in the judgment text; they are referred to only as 'the Claimant' and 'the Respondent', and no case number or neutral citation is given
Internal inconsistency in dates of the Respondent's letter declaring positions excluded from the union - submissions refer to a letter dated 27th April 2024 while the pleadings and the court's findings refer to 27th April 2020
The CBAs referenced are inconsistent - the claimant relies on a CBA 2018-2020 submitted for registration, while the court applied the CBA of April 2014-31st March 2016 as the agreement in force for the period under review
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Journalists v Standard Group PLC; Central Organization of Trade Unions (COTU) (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E372 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1300 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1300/eng@2025-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.