Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedApplication dated 23rd October, 2014 (suit not otherwise numbered in the judgment)· [2015] KEELRC 1015 (KLR)

Zachary Binyanya & 6 others v Union of Kenya Civil Servants [2015] KEELRC 1015 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
7 May 2015
ANAbuodha J. N.
2,309 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court reinstated union officials removed without notice or hearing, confirming that even private unions must follow their own constitutions and natural justice.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an interlocutory application dated 23rd October 2014 in which claimants, elected National Executive Board (NEB) members of the Union of Kenya Civil Servants, sought an interlocutory mandatory injunction reinstating them to the NEB and restraining the respondent from interfering with their employment pending trial. They contended that letters of 15th October 2014 from the Secretary General terminating their positions were unilateral, unlawful and in breach of the union's constitution, which vested removal powers in the Quinquennial Delegates Conference and required notice and a hearing under Article 12. The respondent, through Mr. Noah Rotich, countered that the claimants were District branch officials who had wrongly attended NEB meetings, and that the Central Governing Council - the organ empowered to interpret the constitution - had resolved on 10th October 2014 to replace them. Counsel for the applicants also sought to strike out Rotich's replying affidavit on the ground that only the Secretary General could depone for the union. The court held that interlocutory mandatory injunctions, being akin to interlocutory final judgments, are granted only in exceptional circumstances. Noting that both sides acknowledged interpretational and operational anomalies in the union's constitution, and that the claimants were removed without notice or hearing, the court found a prima facie case with a high probability of success and granted the mandatory injunction as prayed in prayer 2 of the motion.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an interlocutory mandatory injunction should issue reinstating the applicants to the National Executive Board

Holding

Yes - the applicants established a prima facie case with high probability of success, and removal without hearing during acknowledged constitutional anomalies justified the exceptional remedy

Reasoning

The court accepted that the union's constitution suffered interpretational and operational difficulties acknowledged by both sides, and that removal without notice or hearing breached the union's own constitution and natural justice. Given the prima facie case, the court found this an exceptional case fit for a mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage.

p. 5
02

Whether the applicants' removal complied with the respondent's constitution and natural justice

Holding

The removal was improper; the matter should have been handled consultatively through the union's decision-making structures

Reasoning

The claimants deponed they were neither heard nor given notice, contrary to Article 12 of the union's constitution requiring an opportunity to state one's case. The respondent defended removal as a correction of a constitutional anomaly by the Central Governing Council. The court held that where the constitution itself was problematic, unilateral removal was not the answer.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An interlocutory mandatory injunction compels a party to undo an act already done and amounts in essence to an interlocutory final judgment; it should be granted only in exceptional circumstances
  • Courts will interfere in the internal decisions of unions and societies where those decisions breach the body's own constitution or rules of natural justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An interlocutory mandatory injunction granted as prayed in prayer 2 of the motion, reinstating the applicants to the National Executive Board of the respondent pending the hearing and determination of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over the employment/union membership dispute; no specific constitutional or statutory provision cited

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Zachary Binyanya & 6 others v Union of Kenya Civil Servants [2015] KEELRC 1015 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Application dated 23rd October, 2014 (suit not otherwise numbered in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1015/eng@2015-05-07

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