Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals And Allied Workers (KUDHEIHA) v British Army Training Unit Kenya [2015] KEELRC 167 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to review its earlier judgment, ruling a union without a recognition agreement cannot demand dues deductions or block an employer's works council.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether grounds for review under Rule 32 were established
No sufficient cause, new matter or error apparent on the face of the record was established to warrant review
The Court held that the matters raised - alleged harassment, threats and intimidation - had already been addressed in the judgment of 10th June 2015. Revisiting them would amount to the Court sitting on appeal over its own judgment. Review under Rule 32 requires new and important evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record or sufficient ground, none of which the Claimant demonstrated. The proper remedy was an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Whether a works council established by the employer infringes Article 41 or substitutes for the union
A works council is the employer's prerogative and cannot perform the statutory roles of a trade union, but the union cannot compel the employer to abandon it
The Court acknowledged that a works committee cannot be equated to a trade union, whose roles are defined by statute. However, membership of employees in the union is a matter of individual choice and cannot confer decision-making authority on the union within the employer's policy or operations. The union has no mandate to direct the Respondent on how to organise the meeting of employees' needs.
Whether the Court could order continued deduction of union dues absent recognition
No; deductions could only be arranged by individual members directly writing to the employer, since the parties lack a recognition agreement
The Court noted the judgment had not granted the Claimant recognition. Section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act, invoked by the Respondent, regulates recognition. Absent recognition, the union cannot itself direct or communicate deductions; individual members retain the option of writing directly to their employer to request salary deductions for the union's benefit.
Legal principles established
#- Review requires new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient ground
- Where a court has rendered judgment on matters raised again, its role is functus officio
- A works council is the employer's prerogative and cannot be equated to a trade union whose roles are set out in statute
- Union dues deductions cannot be channelled by a union absent recognition between the parties
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 25th August 2015 is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 16 of the Industrial Court Act (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act) and rules 16(1) and 32(c), (d) and (e) of the Court rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals And Allied Workers (KUDHEIHA) v British Army Training Unit Kenya [2015] KEELRC 167 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 28th August 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/167/eng@2015-11-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.