Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutNot stated in the judgment· [2020] KEELRC 1577 (KLR)

Kenya National Union of Nurses (KNUN) v Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) & 2 others [2020] KEELRC 1577 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 February 2020
OMOnesmus N. Makau
2,372 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court struck out a union's suit because it was filed by an officer without written authority, and confirmed union recognition requires a majority of the whole workforce.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant union sued seeking an order compelling the 1st Respondent (its employer-organisation) to deduct and remit union dues from 22 of 31 nurses it had recruited, to sign a Recognition Agreement, to commence CBA negotiations, to stop remitting agency fees to the 2nd Respondent union, to comply with sections 48 and 54 of the Labour Relations Act, and to quash any Gazette Notice authorising agency fee deductions in favour of the 2nd Respondent. The Respondents opposed: the 1st and 2nd Respondents relied on their existing Recognition Agreement and CBA covering all 945 unionisable staff, and argued the Claimant had not recruited a simple majority of the entire workforce; the 2nd Respondent also objected that the suit was filed by an unauthorised officer. The court, disposing of the matter by written submissions, first upheld the objection under section 73(3) read with section 2 of the LRA: the suit was lodged by Mr. Odongo Odongo Okatch, an Industrial Relations Officer who produced no written authority from the General Secretary, rendering the suit incompetent and depriving the court of jurisdiction. The court declined to consider the merits. As a parting observation, the court held that the simple majority required for recognition under section 54(1) refers to the entire unionisable workforce and not a fraction such as the nurses alone. The suit was struck out with costs on 21st February 2020, per Onesmus N. Makau J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit was properly instituted by an authorised representative of the union

Holding

The suit was incompetent because it was referred to the court by Mr. Odongo Odongo Okatch, who produced no written authority from the General Secretary as required by section 73(3) read with section 2 of the LRA

Reasoning

Section 2 of the LRA defines an authorised representative as the General Secretary or a person appointed in writing by such representative. Section 73(3) permits only the authorised representative to refer a trade dispute to the court. Mr. Okatch only deposed that he was competent to swear the affidavits and filed no written authority even after the objection was raised on 22.2.2018. Non-compliance is not a mere procedural technicality but goes to the court's jurisdiction.

p. 3
02

Whether recognition may be accorded to a union recruiting only a fraction (31 nurses) of the employer's 945 unionisable workforce

Holding

No - the simple majority required under section 54(1) refers to the entire unionisable workforce, not a separate interest group within it

Reasoning

The court held that a union seeking recognition must recruit a simple majority of the entire unionisable workforce of the employer. Allowing recognition based on a fraction would amount to unlawfully amending the law, encourage disorder in labour relations, and burden employers with obligations not envisaged in the Act. The existing Recognition Agreement and CBA between the 1st and 2nd Respondents covered all 945 staff.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A trade dispute may only be referred to the Industrial Court by the authorised representative of a trade union; a suit referred by any other person is incompetent and goes to jurisdiction
  • Under section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act, a simple majority of unionisable staff refers to the entire workforce and not separate interest groups within it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is struck out with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations Actsection 2
  • Labour Relations Actsection 48(1), (2), (3) and (6)
  • Labour Relations Actsection 49(1)
  • Labour Relations Actsection 54(1), (2), (5) and (8)
  • Labour Relations Actsection 73(3)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 36
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41(2)(c)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kenya Union of Commercial food and Allied Workers vs Eastleigh Mattresses Limited (East Matt)
    [2017] eKLR
  • KPAWU v Kenya Chemical and Allied Workers Union and Another
    [2017] eKLR
  • Kenya Petroleum Workers Union v Kenol Mahail Service Station and another
    [2017] eKLR
  • Jophinus Musindi & 7 others, National Executive Council Committee Members, acting for Kenya National Union of Nurses v Seth Panyako
    [2014] eKLR
  • Transport Workers Union v Consolebase Ltd
    [2015] eKLR
  • Rift Valley Railway Workers Union v Rift Valley Railways (Kenya) Ltd and Another
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 73(3) read with section 2 of the Labour Relations Act, No. 14 of 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya National Union of Nurses (KNUN) v Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) & 2 others [2020] KEELRC 1577 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1577/eng@2020-02-21

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