Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No E005 of 2020· [2023] KEELRC 346 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Domestic Workers, Educational Institution Hospital and Hospital Workers v Egerton Univeristy & another (Cause E005 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 346 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 February 2023
HWHellen Wasilwa
2,369 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

#

Egerton University must pay a union KShs 2.8 million because it couldn't prove union dues reached the officially designated bank account.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant Union, registered under the Labour Relations Act, sued the 1st Respondent (a public university) and its employee/shop steward (2nd Respondent) for withholding union dues totalling Kshs 2,818,600 covering February to December 2018, April to June 2020, August 2020, and November 2019 to August 2020. The Claimant alleged the Respondents acted in cahoots in paying dues into accounts other than the gazetted union bank account, in violation of sections 48 and 50 of the Labour Relations Act, exposing the Union to financial hardship and constituting unfair labour practice. The 2nd Respondent filed no appearance or defence. The 1st Respondent maintained it had always remitted dues, asserting the practice was that cheques were collected by the Claimant's branch officials or the shop steward, and admitted only Kshs 483,000. Its legal officer, RW-1, admitted under cross-examination that she knew dues were to be deposited into the gazetted account, that no letter of authority authorised the 2nd Respondent to collect cheques, and that no money was deposited into the designated account in the relevant periods. The court held that section 50(9) prohibits payment into any account other than the designated one, and that the 1st Respondent failed to demonstrate payment into the designated account, thereby failing to discharge its obligation to remit. The claim was found established and uncontroverted. Judgment was entered for the Claimant for Kshs 2,818,600 plus costs and interest at court rates from the date of judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether non-payment into the designated account constitutes non-remitance

Holding

Yes; the 1st Respondent, knowing the dues were to be deposited into the gazetted account, handed cheques to branch officials without authority, and failed to show the money reached the designated account

Reasoning

Section 50(1) of the Labour Relations Act requires amounts deducted to be paid into the designated account within ten days, and section 50(9) bars payment into any other account. RW-1 admitted knowledge of the gazetted account and admitted no letter of authority existed for the 2nd Respondent to collect cheques. No proof of deposit into the designated account was tendered.

p. 5
02

Whether the claim against the 2nd Respondent was uncontroverted

Holding

The 2nd Respondent neither entered appearance nor filed a defence, so the claim against him stood unchallenged

Reasoning

The Claimant submitted, relying on Motex Knitwear v Gopitex Knitwear Mills, that an undefended claim stands unchallenged. The court found the claim established and uncontroverted, apparently against both Respondents.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must remit union dues only into the account designated by the Minister; failure to demonstrate payment into the designated account amounts to failure to discharge the obligation to remit

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant in the sum of Kshs 2,818,600
  2. 2.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
  3. 3.Interest on the decretal sum at court rates with effect from the date of the judgment

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations Act, 2007sections 48, 50(1)-(10) including 50(9)

Cases cited (3)

  • Miller v Minister of Pension
    [1947] 2 ALL ER page 372
  • Motex Knitwear Limited v Gopitex Knitwear Mills Limited
    [2009] eKLR
  • Autar Singh Bahra & another v Raju Govindjl
    HCCC No 548 of 1998 (unreported)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Act in respect of trade union dues disputes under the Labour Relations Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Domestic Workers, Educational Institution Hospital and Hospital Workers v Egerton Univeristy & another (Cause E005 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 346 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No E005 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/346/eng@2023-02-09

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