Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherCause No. 304 of 2011· [2014] KEELRC 517 (KLR)

Kudheiha v Association of Physically Disabled of Kenya [2014] KEELRC 517 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
24 April 2014
1,067 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court declined to decide a union-employer pay dispute itself, instead sending it to the Commissioner for Labour to investigate and report back.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant union, KUDHEIHA, brought a memorandum of claim against the Association of Physically Disabled of Kenya citing refusal by the management to negotiate 32 clauses of a Collective Bargaining Agreement. The previous CBA, signed on 14th April 2008, ran from 1st August 2004 to 31st July 2007; the union's proposals for the 2006-2010 review were dispatched in December 2009. Negotiations through the Federation of Kenya Employers resolved some clauses, leaving 10 in dispute, covering wages (25%), house allowance, redundancy severance, annual leave, retirement benefits, protection of employees, meals/water, daily transport, long service increment and safari allowance. The respondent, an NGO registered under the NGO Act dependent on specified donations not covering recurrent expenditure, pleaded loss-making operations and financial incapacity, having by letter of 4th January 2010 sought the union's understanding of extenuating circumstances - which the union read as refusal to negotiate, prompting the report to the Minister for Labour. Both parties filed written submissions, which the court treated as reiterations of pleaded positions. Finding both positions to be earnest industrial relations positions deserving respect, the court declined to determine the disputed clauses itself. Instead it referred the contentious issues to the Commissioner for Labour to hear oral evidence, memoranda and documentation, and to furnish a report within sixty days, with mention on 2nd July 2014 for receipt of the report. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Determination of the 10 disputed clauses of the Collective Bargaining Agreement

Holding

The court did not determine the clauses itself but referred the contentious issues to the Commissioner for Labour to hear oral evidence, memoranda and documentation and determine the issues, with a report due within sixty days

Reasoning

The court appreciated the respective positions of the parties as earnest industrial relations positions deserving respect. Balancing the claimant's demands against the respondent's pleaded financial incapacity as an NGO dependent on specified donations, the court considered it appropriate that the Secretary for Labour scrutinise and analyse the positions to arrive at an agreed and acceptable outcome, and retained oversight via a report and mention date.

p. 3
02

Respondent's financial capacity to meet the union's demands

Holding

The respondent's plea of adverse economic circumstances was recognised as a position to be respected and weighed in the referral, not rejected

Reasoning

The respondent, registered under the NGO Act and funded by specified donations that do not cover recurrent expenditure, pleaded loss-making operations and inability to meet the CBA terms, having written on 4th January 2010 seeking the claimant's understanding of extenuating circumstances. The court treated this as an earnest position requiring scrutiny by the labour machinery rather than an outright rejection.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where parties' positions reflect earnest industrial relations exercises, the court may refer unresolved collective bargaining issues to the Commissioner for Labour for hearing and determination

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The matter be and is hereby referred to the Commissioner for Labour who by himself or through his appointed Labour Officer shall hear and determine the contentious issues in dispute by the parties
  2. 2.The Commissioner or his appointed agency and official shall hear oral evidence, and address memoranda, documentation and other data presented by the parties in facilitating such determination of the issues in dispute
  3. 3.The Commissioner is directed to furnish this court with a report and the subject within sixty days of these orders of court
  4. 4.Mention on 2nd July, 2014 at 900 hours to enable receipt of a report on determination by the Commissioner for Labour
  5. 5.Each party shall bear its costs of this claim
Jurisdiction invoked
Jurisdiction as the Industrial Court of Kenya over trade disputes referred under the Labour Relations framework; dispute reported to the Minister for Labour and referred to the court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kudheiha v Association of Physically Disabled of Kenya [2014] KEELRC 517 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Cause No. 304 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/517/eng@2014-04-24

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