Kenya Union of Special and Professional Guards (KUSPROG) v Garda World Security (K) Limited (Cause E724 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2842 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court barred an employer from intimidating or interfering with employees' union membership while a check-off dues dispute is resolved through conciliation.
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 suit is prematurely before the court.
- 2.Whether the orders sought should be granted.
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is prematurely before the court
The suit is not premature; it is properly brought under Rule 54 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 after reporting a trade dispute for conciliation.
The Respondent contended the suit was premature and that the prayers were not contemplated under Rule 54. The court found Rule 54 exists precisely to protect ADR proceedings from being rendered nugatory by preserving the status quo, and that the Claimant reported the trade dispute on 18th July 2025 before filing suit on 25th July 2025, satisfying the Rule.
Whether the order compelling implementation of check-off forms (Forms S) should be granted
Refused; it is final relief that would render the conciliation process moot.
Relying on Ngurumani Limited v. Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others, the court held that conclusive pronouncements cannot be made while the suit is pending. Compelling deductions would dispose of the main issue pending before the Labour Cabinet Secretary, so the statutory conciliation mechanism must first be exhausted.
Whether a temporary injunction should issue restraining interference with employees' union membership
Granted; the Claimant established a prima facie case and irreparable harm.
The court found the Motion raised legitimate concerns about interference with employees' rights under Articles 36 and 41(2)(c) of the Constitution. The Claimant recruited over 3,500 members; only 248 disputed membership. With the dues dispute before the Cabinet Secretary, the Respondent could not engage employees on the authenticity of Forms S. Lost membership cannot be remedied by damages.
Legal principles established
#- A party is not allowed to seek final relief under Rule 54 of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2024; the Rule preserves status quo pending conciliation.
- Where the order sought is final in nature, a court should refrain from granting it to protect the right to a fair hearing.
- An employer may not unilaterally extend the period for complying with Forms S or investigate employees on the authenticity of Forms S once a dispute on dues is before the Labour Cabinet Secretary, as that would interfere with rights under Articles 36 and 41 of the Constitution.
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the Respondent, its agents and/or representatives from intimidating, coercing, or victimizing employees or interfering with their membership in the Claimant union, pending the conciliation process.
- 2.Direction that the conciliation process be concluded as soon as possible and a Report of the conciliation filed in court.
- 3.Costs of the Motion in the cause.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 54 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024; Section 62 of the Labour Relations Act
Relief refused
#Order compelling the Respondent to immediately implement all Form Ss (Check-Offs) already forwarded by the union and those regularly submitted, in line with section 48 of the Labour Relations Act.
The order sought is final relief that would render the pending conciliation moot; final relief cannot be granted at an interlocutory stage.
Costs
Costs of the Motion in the cause.
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.
I have found that the order to compel the Respondent to commence deduction of union dues pending the conciliation process is premature and cannot be granted. However, I have found that a temporary injunction is warranted and is hereby given, restraining the Respondents, its agents and/or representatives from intimidating, coercing, or victimizing employees or interfering with their membership in the Claimant union, pending the conciliation process.
Due to the nature of the case, I direct that the conciliation process be concluded as soon as possible and a Report of the conciliation filed in court. Cost of the Motion in the cause.
The essence of the Rule is to protect Alternative Dispute Resolution proceedings from being rendered nugatory by preserving the status quo and the substratum of the proceeding.
it would be both premature and prejudicial to the rights of the parties to make any conclusion pronouncements on matters either of fact or law while the suit, where such merits will be decided is still pending
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently records the date the trade dispute referral letter was made, stating both 18th July 2025 and a referral letter dated 23rd July 2025.
The judgment is internally inconsistent on the number of recruited members, stating 4408 in one place and 'in excess 3500' in the analysis.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Special and Professional Guards (KUSPROG) v Garda World Security (K) Limited (Cause E724 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2842 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2842/eng@2025-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.