Kenya Private Universities Workers Union v United States International University – Africa (Cause E594 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2157 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld a university's COVID-19 redundancies, confirming employers may re-organise genuinely and unions can sue for members without a recognition agreement.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity and genuineness of the redundancy reason
The redundancy was valid and genuine, driven by COVID-19 operational requirements and closure of the medical department
The Court found the respondent's finances were seriously affected by COVID-19, justifying downsizing and closure of auxiliary services including the medical department. Outsourcing of medical services after redundancy did not render the redundancy pretended, as the employer was entitled to re-organise for better economy, and the re-design was factual and genuine.
Fairness of the redundancy procedure
The respondent adopted a fair procedure, having consulted the union and the grievants and paid final dues including severance
The claimant's General Secretary confirmed the union attended two meetings prior to the redundancy and that the grievants were paid upon redundancy with notices given. The consultation requirement per Kenya Airlines v Aviation & Allied was met, and selection criteria did not arise as the entire medical department was abolished.
Locus standi of the union without a recognition agreement
The union was entitled to represent its members on individual contracts in the redundancy consultations and in court; recognition is only a precondition for collective bargaining
Relying on Modern Soap Factory v Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union, and other ELRC decisions, the Court held that a registered union whose constitution empowers it may institute claims on behalf of its members, and that a recognition agreement regulates engagement on terms of employment but is not the basis of representation in court.
Claim for refund of agreed salary cuts and unpaid leave during COVID-19
The claim failed; the salary cuts were agreed and it would be oppressive to require payment for periods the grievants were not working
The respondent paid salaries for 1.5 years while staff were not at work during COVID-19, and the salary cuts were a cost-effective measure agreed between the respondent and the claimant union or grievants. Humane exit considerations, such as continued medical cover and tuition waiver, were mitigating factors under section 49.
Legal principles established
#- An employer enjoys a prerogative to re-organise the enterprise provided the re-organisation is factual and not fictitious or pretended so as to unfairly disadvantage workers
- Recognition of a trade union by an employer is not a precondition for the union to represent its members in court; membership is the precondition
- Where a whole department is abolished in its entirety, selection criteria based on seniority and suitability do not arise
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Act over employment and labour relations disputes
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Private Universities Workers Union v United States International University – Africa (Cause E594 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2157 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated on the face of the judgment (references to Cause No. 525/2020, Cause Nos. 1087/2017 and E878/2021 concern related matters). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2157/eng@2025-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.