Universities Academic Staff Union v Murang’a University of Technology & another (Petition E068 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 9 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that the University of Nairobi couldn't increase lecturers' workloads without first consulting their union — the resolution was voided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Respondent's increase of lecturers' workload without consultation was unlawful
Yes - the 1st Respondent breached sections 10 and 13 of the Employment Act, Articles 10, 41 and 232(1)(d) of the Constitution and the recognition agreement by unilaterally increasing workload
Section 10(5) of the Employment Act requires consultation before changes to employment particulars, and section 13 requires written communication of changes. The 1st Respondent never filed a replying affidavit or demonstrated consultation; only generalized grounds of opposition. The resolution increased teaching units without commensurate remuneration, contravening Article 41 fair labour practice and Article 232(1)(d) involvement of people in policy making. The court applied the public participation principles from R v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Agriculture and UASU TUM Chapter.
Whether the court should direct the 2nd Respondent (CUE) to enforce its workload guidelines
No - the Commission for University Education is a regulator without mandate over internal administration of universities
The 2nd Respondent demonstrated it does not engage in management affairs of universities and is not privy to the 83rd Senate decision. Universities are governed by the Universities Act, their charters, statutes and policies which spell out internal management procedures. Enforcement of workload guidelines is best left to university organs such as the senate and council, so the court declined to grant that relief.
Whether the Petitioner satisfied the principles for an injunction
Yes - the Petitioner established a prima facie case and entitlement to injunctive relief against the 1st Respondent
The court applied Giella v Cassman Brown and Mrao Ltd v First American Bank on prima facie case. The UASU TUM Chapter authority was found apposite: unilateral and detrimental alteration of employment terms without consultation establishes a prima facie case. The 1st Respondent did not deny absence of consultation, having filed no replying affidavit, so the injunction against implementation of the 83rd resolution was merited.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must consult employees before making changes to terms and conditions of employment; unilateral changes breach sections 10 and 13 of the Employment Act and Article 41 fair labour practice
- Stakeholders affected by policy decisions of public bodies must be consulted; public participation does not mean consent but involvement
Court orders
#- 1.An injunction issued against the 1st Respondent, its servants, agents or whomever acting on its behalf, restraining it from implementing the 83rd resolution of the Senate Committee of April 6, 2022 requiring faculties to take additional two units for part times without the inclusion of the Petitioner's input
- 2.A declaration that the 83rd Senate Committee Resolution is null and void
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 10, 14, 30(2), 41, 47 and 232 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Employment Act 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Universities Academic Staff Union v Murang’a University of Technology & another (Petition E068 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 9 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Petition dated May 9, 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/9/eng@2023-01-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.