Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherNot stated in the ruling (reference is to the Court's judgment delivered on 4th March, 2024)

Banking Insurance and Finance Union (Kenya) v Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited (Cause E728 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2454 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
17 September 2025
AJABUODHA NELSON JORUM
623 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court told the banking union to sign the settlement consent, confirming that state-owned banks need Salaries and Remuneration Commission approval for pay deals.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, delivered virtually on 17th September 2025 by Abudha Nelson Jorum J, deals with a follow-up to the Court's judgment of 4th March 2024, in which the parties were directed to process their dispute through the internal dispute resolution mechanism under clause 4 read with clauses 18 to 19 of their Recognition Agreement, conclude the process within 60 days and file a report for final orders. Counsel for the claimant union, Mr Odero, reported that the parties had met and agreed that Consolidated Bank would review staff roles for employees moved from unionisable to management roles while retaining the same duties; that the Bank would reinstate deduction of union dues for staff continuing to perform unionisable roles in compliance with the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and the Recognition Agreement; and that, as a wholly government-owned bank, it would have a separate arrangement with the union on implementation of the CBA negotiated between KBA and the union. However, the union objected to the respondent's lawyer's draft consent on the ground that it introduced new matters, namely registration of union members and a requirement that the Bank, in consultation with the SRC, have a separate arrangement to review CBA implementation. The Court reviewed the objection against the minutes of the Joint Negotiating Committee meeting of 17th April 2024 and held the contested insertions to be innocuous and statutorily necessary. It emphasised that the Bank, being fully state-owned, is bound by the SRC Act, so SRC concurrence of any CBA is proper, and that a union may only represent its own members, with non-member beneficiaries of CBAs obliged to pay agency fees. The Court found nothing untoward in the draft consent, urged the union to sign it, and set the matter for mention on 3rd November 2025 to confirm signing and filing. No costs order was made.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the issues allegedly introduced by the respondent's lawyer in the draft consent (membership registration and SRC/SRA concurrence) were new and objectionable
  2. 2.Whether the draft consent is innocuous or inimical to the union's interest and should be signed

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether SRC/SRA concurrence may validly be made a condition of a negotiated CBA with a wholly state-owned bank

Holding

Yes; such concurrence is statutorily necessary and not objectionable

Reasoning

The Court reasoned that Consolidated Bank, being fully owned by the government, is bound by the SRC Act, whose constitutional mandate is to set and regularly review salaries and allowances of public officers. Accordingly, tying any CBA agreed between the Bank and the Union to SRC concurrence is proper and does not prejudice the union.

p. 2
02

Whether the union may object to consent language on registered membership

Holding

No; a union represents only its members, and the membership wording is legitimate

Reasoning

The Court held that a union's representative mandate extends only to its members. Other unionisable employees who are not members but benefit from CBAs negotiated by the union are required by law to pay agency fees. The contested wording on duly registered members was therefore innocuous.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A union can only represent its own members; non-member unionisable employees who benefit from CBAs must pay agency fees
  • A fully government-owned bank is bound by the SRC Act, and any CBA agreed with a union may properly be tied to the concurrence of the SRC

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Court found nothing untoward in the draft consent and urged the union to sign the same to bring the matter to a close
  2. 2.Matter set for mention on 3rd November, 2025 to confirm signing and filing of the consent

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

AJ
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction, exercising its judgment of 4th March, 2024 directing the parties to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanism under clause 4 read with clauses 18 to 19 of the Recognition Agreement

Relief refused

#

The union's objection to the draft consent

The issues considered new were held to be innocuous and/or statutorily necessary, particularly SRC concurrence for CBAs involving a fully government-owned bank

p. 2

Costs

No costs order made

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 the Court finds nothing untoward or inimical to the interest of the union in the draft consent and hereby urges them to sign the same in order to bring this matter to a close.
p. 2disposition - urging execution of the consent
The matter is set for mention on 3rd November, 2025 for to confirm signing and filing of the consent in order to bring this matter to close.
p. 2final orders - mention date
There is therefore nothing wrong in tying any CBA agreed between the Bank and the Union to concurrence of SRC.
p. 2SRC concurrence for CBAs in wholly state-owned entities
Other persons who are unionisable but not its members but benefit from CBAs negotiated by the union are by law required to pay to the union agency fees.
p. 2agency fees for non-member beneficiaries

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The ruling repeatedly spells 'staff' as 'stafi' and 'public oficers' is misspelt; also no case number or the parties' full registered names appear on the face of the ruling

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Banking Insurance and Finance Union (Kenya) v Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited (Cause E728 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2454 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the ruling (reference is to the Court's judgment delivered on 4th March, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2454/eng@2025-09-17

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.