Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & another; Commission for University Education & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2019] KEELRC 923 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court blocked the government from merging or shutting public universities without first involving the lecturers' union, UASU.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether conservatory orders should issue restraining implementation of the 2019/2020 budget statement on merger/closure of public universities without stakeholder inclusion
Yes - conservatory orders issued restraining implementation without inclusion of the petitioner's input pending determination of the petition
The court applied the Gatirau Peter Munya test as summarised in Ezra Chiloba v Chebukati. The petitioner demonstrated it was a key stakeholder with a recognition agreement and CBAs, yet was excluded from the 1st respondent's consultations and the 19th June 2019 meeting with Vice Chancellors. It established a prima facie case with likelihood of success, probable job losses, likely infringement of Articles 41, 47 and 232 rights, and that damages would be inadequate. Public interest and constitutional values favoured the grant.
Whether the Cabinet Secretary had commenced the merger/closure process without the petitioner's involvement
The court found that the 1st respondent did not deny directing Vice Chancellors on 19th June 2019 to prepare a list of universities to be merged and shut down, and that the petitioner was excluded from stakeholder engagements
The Cabinet Secretary admitted in his replying affidavit that the Ministry had commenced engagements with relevant stakeholders, but the petitioner was not included among them. Prof. Ntarangwi admitted the 19th June 2019 meeting with Vice Chancellors. The court treated the petitioner's allegations as effectively uncontroverted on this point and found the petitioner a major stakeholder left out of the initiatives.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking conservatory orders should demonstrate a prima facie case with likelihood of success, prejudice if orders are not granted, enhancement of constitutional values, that the petition would be rendered nugatory if declined, and that public interest favours the grant
- A recognised trade union is entitled to be involved in any forum in which terms of employment, including loss or reduction of employment of its members, are to be discussed
Court orders
#- 1.A Conservatory Order issued against the Respondents, whether by themselves, their servants and or agents or whomsoever is acting on their behalf, from implementing the budget statement for the year 2019/2020 on merging and shutting down of Public Universities without the inclusion of the Petitioner's input pending the hearing and determination of the petition
- 2.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
- 3.Clarification that the court has not stopped implementation of the budget statement on merger or shut down of public universities; what it has stopped is the same being done without involvement of the petitioner
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya, 2010 - enforcement of Bill of Rights under Articles 10, 22, 41, 47, 118 and 232; employment and labour relations jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & another; Commission for University Education & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2019] KEELRC 923 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Petition No 144 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/923/eng@2019-08-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.