AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition dated 6th September, 2021 (Notice of Motion dated 6th September, 2021, filed 9th September, 2021)· [2021] KEELRC 108 (KLR)
Universities Academic Staff Union, Egerton University Charter v Egerton University & 2 others [2021] KEELRC 108 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to suspend Egerton University's workload policy and tuition waiver changes, ordering the union's challenge to be heard in full instead.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This was a ruling on the Petitioner union's Notice of Motion dated 6th September, 2021 seeking temporary injunctions, under Article 23 of the Constitution, restraining the Respondents from implementing the Egerton University Staff Workload Policy 2019 and from lifting tuition fee waivers for staff with effect from 1st July 2021, and requiring reversion to teaching workloads determined by the FTSE formula under clause 24.13 of the 2012 CBA. The Petitioner, through the supporting affidavit of its Secretary, Dr Grace W. Kibue, argued that the 2019 policy unilaterally increased annual teaching workload from 18 CFs to 24 CFs and that the withdrawal of tuition waivers under clause 21 of the CBA were unilateral changes made without consultation, contrary to Articles 10, 41, 47 and 232 of the Constitution, section 5 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act and sections 10(5) and 13(1) of the Employment Act. The Respondents opposed through grounds of opposition and a replying affidavit by the Vice Chancellor, Prof. Issac Kibwage, contending that the policy was lawful, had been in force since March 2021, that the 2016 CBA had replaced the 2012 CBA, that the measures were austerity steps to address an operating deficit, and that damages were an adequate remedy. The court declined to grant any injunctive orders, holding that the application sought to stop directives already in force and that granting the orders would determine the entire petition at an interlocutory stage. Parties were directed to proceed with the main petition, with costs reserved to the petition.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether a temporary injunction should issue to restrain implementation of the 2019 workload policy and withdrawal of tuition waivers
Holding
The application for a temporary injunction was declined; the parties were directed to proceed with the main petition
Reasoning
The court found that the injunction sought would stop directives already in force and, if determined at the interlocutory stage, would effectively dispose of the entire petition without allowing the parties to demonstrate the merits or otherwise of their case in a full hearing. No injunctive orders were therefore appropriate at that stage.
p. 4
Legal principles established
#- Interlocutory orders that would effectively determine the whole petition without a full hearing should be declined
Court orders
#- 1.Declined to grant any injunctive orders at this stage
- 2.Directed that the parties proceed with the main petition to the fullest
- 3.Costs reserved to the petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya 2010, Article 23 (injunction in enforcement of Bill of Rights); petition invoking Articles 10, 41, 47 and 232
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Universities Academic Staff Union, Egerton University Charter v Egerton University & 2 others [2021] KEELRC 108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Petition dated 6th September, 2021 (Notice of Motion dated 6th September, 2021, filed 9th September, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/108/eng@2021-12-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.