Kenya Private Universitites Workers Union v St Paul's University (Cause 147 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1408 (KLR)
The bottom line
#St Paul's University must let the workers' union access its staff and deduct union dues, but the union fell short of winning formal recognition.
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 unlawfully denied the Union access to its members and potential members
- 2.Whether the Respondent is obliged to deduct and remit union dues under section 48 of the Labour Relations Act
- 3.Whether the Respondent victimised employees on account of trade union affiliation
- 4.Whether the Union met the threshold for a recognition agreement under section 54 of the Labour Relations Act
Key legal issues
#Access to members and premises
The Respondent breached the Union's right to organise and the employees' right to associate by denying access
Section 56 of the Labour Relations Act contemplates employer-granted access for lawful trade union activities such as recruitment and members' education. The General Secretary's unrebutted testimony, supported by letters seeking access, established that the Respondent frustrated those efforts. The Court therefore found a breach of the right to organise and associate.
Deduction and remittance of union dues
The Respondent must deduct and remit dues for employees who signed Form S and remain in employment
Section 48 of the Labour Relations Act obliges an employer to deduct union dues from wages of employees who authorise deduction by signing Form S and remit them to the Union's gazetted account. Form S was produced and forwarded to the Respondent; employees who acknowledged membership and remain employed must have dues deducted.
Victimisation of members
Allegation of victimisation not established for want of particulars
The Union alleged victimisation and threats but gave no particulars. The Court nonetheless reiterated the principle that freedom of association includes joining a trade union and that union affiliation must not be used to victimise an employee.
Recognition agreement
Relief for a recognition agreement refused as the statutory threshold was not demonstrated
Under section 54 of the Labour Relations Act a union seeking recognition must meet a statutory threshold. The Union did not demonstrate it had done so, so the order binding the Respondent to sign a recognition agreement and negotiate a CBA was not granted.
Legal principles established
#- An employer is under a statutory duty to deduct and remit union dues for employees who have authorised deduction by signing Form S
- A registered trade union has a right of access to an employer's premises to pursue lawful activities including recruitment and members' education
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the Respondent's decision to deny the Claimant access to pursue lawful trade union activities was unlawful
- 2.Declaration that the Respondent's decision not to comply with section 48 of the Labour Relations Act was unlawful
- 3.The Respondent to grant the Claimant access to its premises to pursue its lawful activities as a trade union
- 4.The Respondent to commence deduction of union dues for employees who signed the Form S and are still in its employment
- 5.Each party to meet its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment and labour relations dispute (Issue in Dispute referred under the Labour Relations Act, 2007)
Relief refused
#Injunction restraining the Respondent from victimising, coercing or terminating services of members on ground of trade union activities
The Union did not give particulars of the victimisation or threats; the Court only restated the principle
Order compelling the Respondent to sign a recognition agreement and negotiate a collective bargaining agreement
The Union did not demonstrate the threshold for recognition under section 54 of the Labour Relations Act
Costs of the suit against the Respondent
The Union did not file usable submissions; the Court anticipated social partnership between the parties
Costs
Each party to meet its own costs.
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.
The Court, therefore, finds that the Respondent breached the Union’s right to organise and those of the employees to associate.
If the employees who acknowledged membership of the Union are still in employment, the Respondent has a duty to deduct and remit union dues to the Union.
The Respondent to grant the Claimant access to its premises to pursue its lawful activities as a trade union.
The Respondent to commence deduction of union dues for employees who signed the Form S and are still in its employment.
Each party, therefore to meet its own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Claimant's submissions were expunged from the record for want of a Notice of Appointment of Advocate, yet the judgment states 'The Union did not file submissions' and simultaneously refers to having considered submissions
Typographical/duplication error in the judgment text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Private Universitites Workers Union v St Paul's University (Cause 147 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1408 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Cause filed 10 March 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1408/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.