Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) v Technical University of Kenya (Petition E195 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 1817 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a union's Kshs 108 million claim for unremitted dues because it was filed as a constitutional petition without the evidence needed to prove the money.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petition met the constitutional petition threshold
It did not; the dispute was essentially recovery of unremitted union dues payable under the Labour Relations Act and should have been a normal cause
The court applied Anarita Karimi Njeru and authorities holding that statutory remedies should not be elevated to constitutional disputes. The Petitioner relied only on Article 41, adduced no evidence of adverse effect on its operations, and the crux was debt recovery. The court aligned with Ketaswu and Dock Workers Union that contractual and statutory disputes are not constitutional disputes.
Whether the Petitioner was entitled to the reliefs sought
No reliefs available; the claim was unsupported by evidence and overlapped with Petition No 112 of 2019
The Petitioner tendered no evidence of how the claimed sums per year were computed, produced only an unauthenticated three-page analysis not referenced in the Supporting Affidavit, and bank statements were not provided. Sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act place the burden of proof on the Petitioner, which was not discharged. Further, the petition was filed while Petition No 112 of 2019, covering a similar matter, was pending and lay unprosecuted for over 14 months.
Abuse of court process by filing multiple related petitions
The instant petition was filed while a similar petition was ongoing and sought to circumvent directions in Petition No 112 of 2019
The Petitioner filed Petition No 39 of 2018, withdrew it, filed Petition No 112 of 2019, and then filed the instant petition before judgment therein, taking no steps until a suo moto notice to show cause. Although the instant petition covered 2015-2021 versus 2015-2019, the overlap and non-compliance with the reconciliation orders weighed against the Petitioner.
Legal principles established
#- A constitutional petition must set out with reasonable precision the complaint, the provisions infringed and the manner of infringement (Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold)
- Matters adequately covered by statute should not be elevated to constitutional disputes
- Good faith in dispute resolution requires response to settlement proposals; silence is not a viable option
Court orders
#- 1.The petition was dismissed with no orders as to costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 41(2)(4) and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 invoked in the Petition; first-instance petition jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) v Technical University of Kenya (Petition E195 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 1817 (KLR)", Case Analysis (). Petition dated November 30, 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1817/eng@2023-07-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.