Agnes W. Kinuthia & 607 others v University of Nairobi & 2 others [2018] KEELRC 639 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed 608 ex-university workers' retrenchment claims because they produced no evidence to support their allegations.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Commencement and joinder of the suit
Suit properly instituted in individual capacities by all listed claimants; no misjoinder of retrenched staff arising from the same transaction, though normal retirees were misjoined
All 608 claimants were listed in the plaint, so the representative-suit objection was misconceived. Because the claims arose from one transaction, the retrenchment exercise, joinder was proper despite the work being overwhelming. However, persons who had retired normally and were never retrenched should not have been named as plaintiffs, amounting to misjoinder, though no striking-out orders were sought.
Legality and fairness of the retrenchment
Retrenchment was justifiable, non-discriminatory and lawful; claim failed
The respondent demonstrated a financial case of overstaffing and labour costs exceeding working capital, a government-wide retrenchment programme under PURP, prescribed LIFO and FIFO criteria, sensitization workshops and union (KUDHEIHA) involvement. The claimants pleaded no particulars of inducement, breach or discrimination, cited no provision violated, and did not show better-retained candidates or material breaches of the CBA.
Monetary claims for allowances, uniforms, overtime and training
Claims failed for want of evidence and particulars
The claimants did not show what was paid and what was withheld, how individual entitlements and computations arose, or that grievances predated retrenchment. Uniforms, if anything, were to be supplied in kind rather than money. No prescribed training with an allowance existed. The court held the prayers unjustified on a balance of probability.
Golden handshake balance
No valid claim; PURP guideline of Kshs.45,000.00 per employee was paid
Under the PURP guidelines applicable to the respondent (as a public university) rather than the general Civil Service Retrenchment Programme guidelines, each retrenched employee was entitled to and was paid a golden handshake of Kshs.45,000.00. The claim for a balance of Kshs.134,024,940.00 therefore failed.
Liability of third parties
Not determined as unnecessary
Since the claimants' suit was dismissed in its entirety, the question of the third parties' liability did not arise for determination.
Legal principles established
#- A retrenchment exercise conducted in accordance with prescribed criteria (LIFO/FIFO), with union involvement and sensitization workshops, is justifiable and not discriminatory
- A party claiming breach, inducement or discrimination must plead and prove particulars and cite the provision violated
- A suit arising out of the same transaction (retrenchment) by many claimants is not a misjoinder even if numerous, though normal retirees joined as claimants amount to misjoinder
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the respondent for dismissal of the suit
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations suit transferred to the Employment and Labour Relations Court (commenced by plaint in the High Court on 09.04.2002)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Agnes W. Kinuthia & 607 others v University of Nairobi & 2 others [2018] KEELRC 639 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No 1601 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/639/eng@2018-11-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.