Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2018] KEELRC 2106 (KLR)

Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Watchdog Limited [2018] KEELRC 2106 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 April 2018
896 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

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a union's recognition and underpayment claims because it failed to prove membership majority or wage underpayment with actual evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant union sued after the Respondent refused to recognise it under section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 2007, also alleging underpayment of security guards below the minimum wage order, and non-payment of overtime, house allowance, medical cover and leave. It sought an order compelling signature of a recognition agreement, check-off deductions of union dues, payment of arrear dues, and payment of minimum wage of Kshs.8,463 plus 15% house allowance and overtime. The Respondent admitted refusing recognition, contending the union had not attained a simple majority of 50 + 1% of its 112 unionisable employees (out of 121 employees), disputing 17 names on the check-off list as duplicated, departed employees, or non-existent. A conciliator appointed under section 65(1) of the LRA failed to resolve the dispute and referred it to the court. The court framed two issues: whether the union had attained the simple majority to merit recognition, and whether employees were underpaid. Applying sections 106-109 of the Evidence Act, the court held the union bore the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. The union produced only a check-off list of 62 names with no documentation showing recruitment vis-à-vis total unionisable employees, while the only figures came from the Respondent. The underpayment claim was a bare allegation with no disclosure of how or by how much employees were underpaid, and neither party called oral evidence. Nduma J dismissed both claims for want of proof and awarded costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Recognition of union under section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 2007

Holding

The Claim failed because the union did not prove it had recruited a simple majority of 50 + 1% of the unionisable employees; the only figures before the court were provided by the Respondent, which disputed 17 names on the check-off list.

Reasoning

The union attached a check-off list of 62 names but no documentation stated how many members had been recruited against total unionisable employees. The Respondent, with 121 employees of whom 112 were unionisable, showed 17 disputed names: duplicates, employees who had left employment, and non-existent persons. The burden lay on the union under sections 106-109 of the Evidence Act and was not discharged, so recognition could not be compelled.

p. 2
02

Claim for underpayment of wages, house allowance and overtime

Holding

The underpayment claim failed as a bare allegation unsupported by evidence.

Reasoning

The Memorandum of Claim did not disclose how or by how much employees were underpaid. The Respondent denied the allegations. Neither party called oral evidence, both relying on written submissions. Without tangible evidence on a balance of probabilities, the court could not find for the union on wages, house allowance, medical cover, leave or overtime.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • He who alleges must prove on a balance of probabilities the allegations to want the court to find in his/her favour
  • A union claiming recognition under section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act must tender tangible evidence of recruitment of a simple majority of 50 + 1% of the unionisable employees

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations Act, 2007Section 54(1)
  • Labour Relations Act, 2007Section 65(1)
  • Evidence Act, Cap 80 of the laws of KenyaSections 106, 107, 108 and 109
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 36 and 41
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 36 and 41 of the Constitution and section 54 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007; reference by conciliator under section 65(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Watchdog Limited [2018] KEELRC 2106 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2106/eng@2018-04-18

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