Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2019] KEELRC 740 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Special Needs Education Teachers v Teachers Service Commission [2019] KEELRC 740 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 September 2019
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,125 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court declined to stop TSC from deducting KNUT and KUPPET dues from special education teachers, saying the issues must be decided at a full hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on the Claimant union's Chamber Summons dated 11 February 2019 seeking conservatory orders against the Teachers Service Commission (TSC). The Claimant, a union registered to represent special education teachers, complained that despite the Minister for Labour gazetting its union dues and the TSC implementing them, the TSC continued deducting union dues and agency fees for KNUT and KUPPET from its members' salaries. It sought orders restraining the deductions, refunding deductions made since 2015, and cleaning the payroll system, alleging violations of Article 41 of the Constitution and Section 21(b)(ii) of the Labour Relations Act. The TSC opposed through the Replying Affidavit of Josephine Mueni Maundu, contending that the Claimant was not recognized as it had not met the Section 54(1) threshold; that recognition agreements and CBAs existed with KNUT and KUPPET; that an agency fee was payable to KUPPET from 1 June 2018 pursuant to L.N. 98/2018 in respect of 25,656 unionizable teachers, of whom only 95 belonged to the Claimant; and that members benefiting from a CBA must pay agency fees under Section 49 of the Act. The matter had earlier gone to conciliation, where the Conciliator found the Claimant's demand had no basis in law. Justice Hellen Wasilwa framed two issues concerning continued agency fee deductions and remission of dues to the Claimant. Finding that the orders sought in the application were identical to those in the main claim, such that resolving the application would determine the main claim, the court issued no interim orders and directed the parties to proceed with the main claim, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether interim conservatory orders should issue restraining union dues deductions and compelling refunds

Holding

No interim orders issued; the application mirrored the main claim and was disposed of by directions to proceed to trial

Reasoning

The court observed that the orders sought in the Chamber Summons were the same as those in the main claim. Granting the interim relief would effectively determine the main suit at an interlocutory stage. It therefore declined to grant conservatory orders and directed the parties to proceed with the main claim, with costs reserved to the cause.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an interlocutory application seeks orders identical to those in the main claim, the court may decline to issue interim orders and direct parties to the main claim

Court orders

#
  1. 1.No interim orders issued; parties directed to proceed with the main claim
  2. 2.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations ActSection 21(b)(ii)
  • Labour Relations ActSection 54(1)
  • Labour Relations ActSection 49
  • Labour Relations ActSection 4(1)(a) and (c)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41(1) and (2)(c)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 40
  • Kenya Gazette Supplement / Legal NoticeL.N. 98/2018

Cases cited (7)

  • Kenya Chemical & Allied Workers Union vs. Polypipes Limited
  • Kenya Union of Sugar Plantation and Allied Workers vs. Mumias Sugar Company Limited & 6 Others
    [2016] eKLR
  • D.T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Limited vs. Joseph Mbaria Muchina & Another
    [1980] eKLR
  • Tailors and Textiles Workers Union vs. Ashton Apparels [EPZ] Limited
    [2015] eKLR
  • Kenya Hotels and Allied Workers Union vs. Attorney General & 6 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Chicago Teachers Union vs. Hudson
    475 U.S. 292 (1986)
  • Communication Workers of America vs. Beck
    487 U.S. 735 (1988)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes (Constitution, Article 41 cited by parties)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Special Needs Education Teachers v Teachers Service Commission [2019] KEELRC 740 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/740/eng@2019-09-23

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