Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 428 of 2013· [2015] KEELRC 847 (KLR)

Union of National Research and Allied Institutes Staff of Kenya (UNRISK) v Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) [2015] KEELRC 847 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
4 June 2015
MMM. Mbaru
2,081 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a government circular on house rents does not bind state corporations, and employees cannot receive both housing and a house allowance.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant union, on behalf of ten staff at the respondent's Kakamega centre, claimed that the respondent failed to revise house rent charges from Kshs.3,500.00 to Kshs.2,000.00 in line with recommendations arising from a Presidential Circular of 18th June 2001 (communicated on 20th September 2002) harmonising rents for government houses, and sought refund of Kshs.1,000.00 per month per employee from July 2002 to judgment, a direction to charge the recommended rent, remission within three months, and costs. The respondent denied the claim, asserting it is a body corporate under the Science and Technology Act Cap 250, delinked from the Ministry of Agriculture since 1989, managing its houses autonomously through its Board as revenue-generating assets; that the Circular targeted the civil service and essential staff requiring 24-hour presence; and that the employees received house allowances and should surrender the houses or rely on the allowances. The court held the Circular was addressed to specified public service offices and did not apply to the respondent, a body corporate with exclusive authority over its assets, and that its exclusion was deliberate. The court further found the employees, being housed and also earning house allowances, enjoyed a double benefit with no justification, and that no refund was due. The conciliator's recommendation and Ministry communications did not bind the respondent. The suit was dismissed in its entirety with costs to the respondent. Notably, the respondent did not counterclaim for surrender of the houses or unpaid rents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Applicability of the Presidential Circular on revised rents for government houses to the Respondent

Holding

The Circular did not apply to the Respondent, which is a body corporate under the Science and Technology Act and not part of the civil service

Reasoning

The Respondent was established under section 12(1) of the Science and Technology Act Cap 250 as a body corporate with perpetual succession, able to hold and dispose of property for its own purposes. It was delinked from the Ministry of Agriculture in 1989 and manages its houses as revenue-generating assets through its Board. The Circular was addressed to specific public service offices, did not list the Respondent, and its exclusion was deliberate.

p. 4
02

Whether the Kakamega staff were covered by the Circular's rent provisions

Holding

The Circular applied only to public servants occupying institutional houses whose services were essential requiring 24-hour presence, which was not the case for the listed employees

Reasoning

The Circular's terms limited its application to essential public servants requiring round-the-clock presence, and even for them it allowed either the house or the house allowance, whichever is lower. The listed employees received monthly house allowances while also being accommodated, which the court found to be an unjustified double benefit outside the Circular's scheme.

p. 3
03

Entitlement to refund of alleged overpaid rent

Holding

No refund was due; the employees were not entitled to the claimant housing terms as a matter of course

Reasoning

The Respondent manages its houses as revenue-generating assets; staff are paid full house allowance and are not entitled to housing as of right. There was accordingly no overpayment to refund, and the claimant did not establish any entitlement founded in law. The Respondent also did not counterclaim for surrender of houses or unpaid rents.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A statutory body corporate with perpetual succession established under its own statute has exclusive authority over its assets and policies, and general public service circulars not directed at it do not apply to it
  • Under the Circular and section 74(1)(i) of the Employment Act, an employee is entitled either to housing or a house allowance, not both

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is dismissed in its entirety
  2. 2.Costs awarded to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Science and Technology ActCap 250, sections 12(1), 13, Fourth Schedule
  • Employment Actsection 31(1), section 74(1)(i)

Cases cited (1)

  • Republic versus National Museums of Kenya & 12 Others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act issues raised); cause filed under the Court's employment jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Union of National Research and Allied Institutes Staff of Kenya (UNRISK) v Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) [2015] KEELRC 847 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No 428 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/847/eng@2015-06-04

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