Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Brinks Security Services Limited (Cause 771 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1545 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that firing workers for recruiting union members is unlawful, awarding three security guards seven months' pay each.
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 should be directed to comply with section 48 of the Labour Relations Act regarding union dues
- 2.Whether the respondent employed and dismissed the grievants
- 3.Whether the dismissal of the grievants was unfair
- 4.Whether reinstatement, underpayment, severance pay and other terminal dues claims were justified
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the dismissals
The respondent substantially complied with section 41 of the Employment Act; procedure was not unfair
The Court found that notices were served and the grievants were heard on the allegations levelled against them, satisfying section 41. For CW1, CW2 and CW3, although procedure was fair, the substantive reason—union recruitment—was unlawful under section 46, rendering the dismissal unfair and unlawful with compensation awarded under sections 49.
Substantive fairness – anti-union discrimination
Dismissal of CW1, CW2 and CW3 for union recruitment violated Article 41 of the Constitution and the Labour Relations Act; dismissal of Rose Akwede Ishepai and Celestine Chepkemoi was not unfair
Recruitment of union members was a main reason for the three grievants' dismissal, and the respondent failed to prove unlawful use of its property or time. For the two employees who did not testify, no material justified a different finding, and Ishepai's refusal of temporary deployment was a valid reason.
Remedies for unfair termination
Six months' compensation plus one month's pay in lieu of notice (7 months' gross salary) each for CW1, CW2 and CW3
Section 49 requires balancing aggravating factors (violation of union rights) against mitigating ones (unclean service records and prior warnings). The Court awarded six months' compensation plus notice pay, and declined underpayment and severance claims for want of specific pleading and proof.
Union dues
Determined by consent; respondent to begin deductions in the January 2025 payroll
The parties recorded a consent in Court under which the union was to serve the Ministerial Order and list of recruited members by 13.12.2024, with deductions commencing in January 2025, marking the union dues issue determined.
Legal principles established
#- Under section 46(c), (d), (e) and (f) of the Employment Act, union membership and participation in union activities are unlawful reasons for dismissal
- Special or liquidated claims such as underpayment and severance pay must be specifically pleaded and proved
- Reinstatement is time-barred three years after termination per section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the summary dismissal of CW1, CW2 and CW3 was unfair and unlawful
- 2.Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, victimizing, unlawfully declaring redundancy, wrongfully dismissing or unfairly terminating contracts of employment of the claimant's members named in the check-off notices
- 3.Prohibition of the respondent from discriminating against unionized employees and forcefully removing them from the union
- 4.Respondent to pay CW1, CW2 and CW3 each seven (7) months' gross salaries less due PAYE, payable by 01.08.2025 failing which interest accrues from the date of judgment
- 5.Respondent to pay the claimant Kshs.50,000.00 as partial 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 Act, 2011, section 12; Employment Act, 2007; Labour Relations Act
Relief refused
#Reinstatement of the grievants
The prayer was abandoned and was belated/time-barred given the three-year limit under section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011
Underpayment of wages and service/severance pay
Special or liquidated claims not specifically pleaded and proved
Compensation for Rose Akwede Ishepai and Celestine Chepkemoi
They did not testify; the reasons for their dismissals were found valid and fair
Full costs of the suit
The Court considered the continuing industrial relationship, margins of success and the consent recorded, awarding only partial costs
Costs
The respondent to pay the claimant Kshs.50,000.00 being partial claimant's costs of the 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.
The respondent is found to have violated the entitlement of CW1, CW2, and CW3 to join and participate in union activities as envisaged in Article 41 of the Constitution and as reinforced in relevant provisions of the Employment Act and Part II of the Labour Relations Act.
Under section 46 (c), (d), (e) and (f) of the Employment Act, union membership, participation in union activities, seeking ofice as a union oficial, and, refusal to join a union or withdrawal from union membership are each an unlawful reason to dismiss or impose other punishment upon an employee.
Being special or liquidated claims they ought to have been specifically pleaded and proved per trite law but that was not done. They are declined.
The respondent to pay CW1, CW2 and CW3, each, a sum of seven (7) months’ gross salaries less due PAYE and computed as well as included in the extracted final decree and to pay by 01.08.2025 and failing interest to be payable thereon from the date of this judgment till full payment.
The respondent to pay the claimant a sum of Kshs.50,000.00 being partial claimant’s costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Name of the respondent company and full case number are not stated in the judgment extract; the claimant's name appears in narrative but the caption is generic
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Brinks Security Services Limited (Cause 771 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1545 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract (memorandum of claim dated 14.11.2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1545/eng@2025-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.