Stephen Kabur1a Ruteere v Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions Hospital Workers (Kudheiha Workers) [2019] KEELRC 1591 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent failed to render assistance regarding the interdiction
No liability; the claimant never reported the interdiction to the union at branch or head office level and unilaterally hired a lawyer
The evidence showed the claimant did not present his predicament about the interdiction to the union at branch or head office levels. He testified he unilaterally hired a lawyer upon interdiction and agreed to pay, with the union not party to that decision. The agreed procedure required grievances to go first to the shop-steward and works committee.
Whether the union was liable for fees of advocates engaged in the criminal and civil cases
The union is not liable; the claimant acted alone without the union's authority to hire or negotiate fees
The claimant exclusively decided to hire a lawyer for the criminal case and for the civil suit; the union never approved the engagement. Only the union's National Executive Board could hire advocates, and a member who hires his own advocates cannot expect the respondent to meet the financial implications.
Whether the claimant was entitled to maximum compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act, 2007
The prayer was misconceived because there was no employment relationship between a union member and the union
Section 49 compensation is payable by an employer for unjustified or unfair termination. The claimant's employer was the Hospital, not the respondent union. There was no employment relationship between the claimant and the union, so the relief sought against the union was misconceived.
Whether the claimant could expect assistance after joining KNUN
No; the claimant had joined the rival union KNUN before dismissal, so he was not acting in good faith in demanding assistance from the respondent
The claimant admitted writing in September 2014 to resign from the respondent and having joined KNUN. As at dismissal in 2017 he belonged to a rival union. Legitimate expectation of assistance from the respondent was therefore misconceived, and his demands were made in bad faith.
Legal principles established
#- A trade union member who bypasses the shop-floor grievance procedure (chief shop-steward and works committee) and unilaterally engages advocates cannot hold the union liable for failure to represent him
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the respondent against the claimant for dismissal of the claimant's statement of claim
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over a trade union member's claim for failure to render representation and financial assistance, founded on the Labour Relations Act, 2007, the Employment Act, 2007 and the respondent's registered constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stephen Kabur1a Ruteere v Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions Hospital Workers (Kudheiha Workers) [2019] KEELRC 1591 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No. 181 of 2016 (statement of claim filed 15.03.2011; reference to Cause No.181 of 2016 is a separate matter). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1591/eng@2019-05-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.