Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) (Kenyatta University Chapter) v Kenyatta University [2021] KEELRC 1483 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed a university union branch can sue on its own and ordered Karatina University to honour negotiated payments while staff continue working.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the claimant has capacity to sue as a branch/chapter of UASU
- 2.Whether restraining orders (interim injunction) should issue against the respondent pending the hearing of the main suit
Key legal issues
#Capacity of a union branch to sue
A registered branch of a trade union under section 25 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007 has capacity to sue and be sued in its own name; the preliminary objection was dismissed.
Section 21 of the Labour Relations Act gives registered unions and their branches body corporate status with capacity to sue and be sued. The extract from the Registrar of Trade Unions listed Dr Makokha as Secretary, and without contrary evidence it was prima facie evidence of current officials. The KNCCI Muranga Chapter case was distinguished as foundationally different since it did not engage the Labour Relations Act.
Prima facie case for interim injunctive relief
The claimant established a prima facie case because the memo of 18th May 2020 and follow-up memo of 29th June 2020 were mandatory, leaving no room for consultation on an item negotiated and remunerated under the CBA.
The CBA 2013-2017, clause 5(d), lists module writing (KES 120,000) and vetting of modules (KES 4,200) as remunerated items. The respondent's memos directed development of online modules in mandatory terms with an inflexible deadline, negating the CBA. The claimant was justified in seeking consultations on work generally regarded as overtime.
Irreparable injury and balance of convenience
Rather than a bare restraining order, the court framed interim orders preserving operations while enforcing CBA terms, since damages/remuneration under the CBA could address the grievance and operations should not stall.
The modules had already been developed and were in use; halting them would stall learning. The court held the appropriate interim relief was reciprocal: the respondent applies CBA clause 5 terms without disadvantaging members, and members obey lawful directions pending the main claim. Remuneration and vetting for quality control were negotiated items to be addressed across the table.
Legal principles established
#- Elected officials of a registered union branch have capacity to sue and be sued
- A registered collective agreement is binding and enforceable upon registration
- An employer cannot unilaterally impose negotiated and remunerated items under a CBA without consultation
Court orders
#- 1.The respondent's preliminary objections on capacity to sue are dismissed
- 2.The respondent, enjoying the modules developed by the claimant's members, shall apply CBA 2013-2017 terms and conditions under clause 5 without placing any claimant member at a disadvantage
- 3.On these orders, the claimant members shall oblige lawful directions and instructions of the respondent in the development of modules taking into account Clause 5 of the CBA 2013-2017 pending the hearing of the main claim
- 4.Costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules
Relief refused
#Costs of the application to be paid by the respondent
Costs deferred to the outcome of the main suit
Costs
Costs herein shall abide the outcome of the main suit.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Objections made are without foundation and are hereby dismissed.
the respondent now enjoying the facility and developed modules by the claimant members shall apply CBA 20132017 terms and condition under clause 5 thereof without placing any claimant member at a disadvantage
On these ORDERS, the claimant members shall oblige lawful directions and instructions of the respondent in the development of modules taking into account Clause 5 of the CBA 2013-2017 until otherwise directed and pending the hearing of the main claim herein
Costs herein shall abide the outcome of the main suit.
To proceed suo motto on a negotiated item under the CBA without consultations and direct the claimant members to proceed development and vetting of modules is to negate the very document the respondent has negotiated and agreed upon.
Issues in the judgment
#Supporting Affidavit reference to union constitution articles appears internally inconsistent
Gaps/incomplete text in the judgment body around the irreparable injury discussion
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) (Kenyatta University Chapter) v Kenyatta University [2021] KEELRC 1483 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELRC Cause (application and Notice of Motion dated 29th January, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1483/eng@2021-04-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.