Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherNot stated in the judgment (separate proceedings referenced: ELRC No. 227 of 2020)· [2023] KEELRC 1982 (KLR)

Kenya Private University Workers Union v Africa Nazarene University (Cause 900 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 1982 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
5 July 2023
3,977 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment and Labour Relations Court paused a university-union dispute so the National Labour Board can first decide whether the union still represents enough workers.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Employment and Labour Relations Court judgment at Nairobi, delivered by Nzioki wa Makau J on 5th July 2023, determined three applications: the Respondent's notice of motion dated 18th July 2022 seeking a stay of conciliation proceedings and CBA negotiations pending the National Labour Board's determination of its application to revoke the Recognition Agreement; the Claimant Union's contempt application dated 18th July 2022 seeking to cite the University's three top administrators for breaching the Court's final orders of 4th March 2019, with fines and an order to sign a CBA within 30 days; and the Claimant's motion dated 17th February 2023 seeking an order that the Respondent provide a counter proposal and conclude a CBA within 30 days, plus a prohibitory order against victimisation of union members. The Respondent argued the Union had fallen below the simple majority representation threshold under section 54 of the Labour Relations Act, had issued a three months' termination notice of the Recognition Agreement, and had applied to the National Labour Board for revocation; it also contested the constitutionality of the Contempt of Court Act and the sufficiency of proof of contempt. The Court held that since the revocation dispute was properly before the National Labour Board, determining the CBA question would usurp the Board's role. It issued only one order: staying the proceedings pending the Board's determination, with parties to report back for further directions. The contempt and CBA applications were not determined on the merits, and no costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Stay of proceedings pending determination of the recognition revocation dispute by the National Labour Board

Holding

The Court stayed its own proceedings pending the National Labour Board's determination rather than ruling on the contempt and CBA applications.

Reasoning

The Respondent had applied to the National Labour Board for revocation of the Recognition Agreement on the ground that the Claimant Union had fallen below the simple majority representation threshold. The Court held that the revocation dispute was properly before the Board and that ruling on the CBA negotiation orders and contempt application would prematurely determine that question. The parties were directed to return to the Court once the Board had determined the matter.

p. 7
02

Whether the Respondent's officials were in contempt of the order of 4th March 2019

Holding

Not decided; the contempt application was not determined on the merits because of the pending National Labour Board process.

Reasoning

The Claimant alleged wilful disobedience of the 4th March 2019 order directing compliance with sections 48 and 54 of the Labour Relations Act. The Respondent contended it had complied by signing the Recognition Agreement, that the Contempt of Court Act 2016 had been declared unconstitutional, and that contempt is a last resort where a civil remedy exists. The Court did not resolve these contentions, electing instead to stay the proceedings.

p. 7
03

Whether the Claimant was entitled to orders compelling conclusion of the CBA and injunctive protection against victimisation

Holding

Not granted; the Court declined to direct parties to conclude the CBA process while the recognition revocation dispute was before the National Labour Board.

Reasoning

The Claimant sought an order compelling the Respondent to provide a counter proposal and conclude the CBA within 30 days, plus a prohibitory order against victimisation and coercion of members. The Respondent maintained the Union no longer commanded simple majority representation and had applied for revocation of the Recognition Agreement. The Court held it would usurp the Board's role by ordering conclusion of the CBA negotiations while the revocation application was pending.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a dispute over revocation of a recognition agreement is properly before the National Labour Board, the ELRC should not determine the revocation question prematurely but should stay proceedings pending the Board's determination.
  • Once the National Labour Board makes its determination, parties are bound to report back to the Court for further directions.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of the proceedings before the Court pending the determination of the revocation of the recognition agreement by the National Labour Board, after which parties are to report back to the Court for further directions

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations Actsections 48, 54, 54(5), 4; Part IX
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Actsection 12(3)
  • Contempt of Court Act2016
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 10, 36, 41, 118(b)

Cases cited (12)

  • Kenya Union of Printing, Publishing, Paper Manufacturers, Pulp & Packaging Industries v Raffia Bags (EA) Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Banking, Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya) v Taifa Sacco Society Ltd
    [2014] eKLR
  • Olivado (EPZ) Limited v Isaiah Bundi Kirigwa, Chairperson National Labour Board & another
    [2019] eKLR
  • Bakery, Confectionery, Food Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union [K] v Mombasa Maize Millers Limited & 3 others
    [2016] eKLR
  • Kenya Human Rights Commission v Attorney General & another
    [2018] eKLR
  • Silverse Lisamula Anami v Justus Kizito Mugali & 2 others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Gatharia K. Mutikika v Baharini Farm Limited
    [1985] KLR 227
  • Katsuri Limited v Kapurchand Depar Shah
    [2016] eKLR
  • Alken Connections Limited v Safaricom Limited & 2 others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Sheila Cassatt Issenberg & another v Antony Machatha Kinyanjui
    [2021] eKLR
  • Joshua Mutua Kithiuma v Angelina Mutheu Mutua
    [2022] eKLR
  • Transport Workers Union v African Safari Adventure
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Private University Workers Union v Africa Nazarene University (Cause 900 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 1982 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment (separate proceedings referenced: ELRC No. 227 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1982/eng@2023-07-05

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