Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutCause No. 1545 of 2018· [2023] KEELRC 2767 (KLR)

Githinji & 131 others v Kenya Medical Research Institute & 6 others (Cause 1545 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 2767 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 October 2023
9,025 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~36 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court struck out 132 KEMRI employees' allowance claim because their union had already litigated the same issue, and that judgment binds even non-union employees who pay agency fees.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi (Ocharo Kebira J) delivered judgment on 26 October 2023 in a claim by 132 employees of the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) alleging pay discrimination in the payment of emergency call, health services, health risk, extraneous and non-practicing allowances. The Claimants sought declarations of discrimination contrary to Articles 27, 47 and 73 of the Constitution and international instruments, payment of specified monthly allowances until retirement, non-victimisation, costs and interest. Four Claimants' witnesses testified; the 1st-3rd Respondents called one witness, Rowland Munyeshi, who conceded that some employees earned the allowances and that KEMRI had sought authority from the Salaries and Remuneration Commission to pay Kshs 473 million. The court framed four issues but resolved the suit on the first: res judicata. It held that the allowances were conclusively determined in Cause No. 1315 of 2013 (UNRISK v KEMRI), where the court directed implementation of two SRC circulars, and by a consent agreement dated 4 February 2019. Although the Claimants were not union members, they paid agency fees under section 49 of the Labour Relations Act and benefited from the union's efforts, hence litigated under the same title. Relying on section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Supreme Court's decisions in KCB v Muiri Coffee Estate and John Florence Maritime, and adopting Radido J's holding in Okiya Omutatah Okoiti v KEMRI, the court struck out the claim as res judicata, holding that enforcement of the earlier judgment, not re-litigation, was the proper avenue. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Res judicata

Holding

The suit is res judicata and was struck out

Reasoning

The allowances claimed were the subject of a final judgment in Cause No. 1315 of 2013 (UNRISK v KEMRI) directing implementation of two SRC circulars, and of a consent agreement dated 4 February 2019. The Claimants, though not union members, paid agency fees and benefited from the union's litigation, thus litigating under the same title. The court applied section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Supreme Court's decisions in KCB v Muiri Coffee Estate and John Florence Maritime, and adopted Radido J's reasoning in Okiya Omutatah Okoiti v KEMRI that enforcement, not re-litigation, was the proper course.

p. 18
02

Whether non-union members paying agency fees are bound by the union's judgment

Holding

Yes - they litigate under the same title as the union

Reasoning

Section 49 of the Labour Relations Act permits agency fee deductions from unionisable employees covered by a collective agreement. The court reasoned that the fee is paid for collective bargaining work whose benefits flow to all unionisable employees; non-members cannot enjoy the benefits of the union's litigation while disclaiming its burdens. All claimants' witnesses admitted paying agency fees and benefiting from the union's successful negotiations.

p. 13
03

Nature of the res judicata doctrine

Holding

Res judicata is a doctrine of substantive law barring re-litigation of conclusively decided issues, including constitutional rights

Reasoning

Citing the Supreme Court in KCB v Muiri Coffee Estate and John Florence Maritime Services, the court restated that once legal rights are judicially determined, the edict stands conclusive; the doctrine applies to all categories including constitutional rights, accords a litigant only one bite at the cherry, and prevents multiplicity of suits.

p. 15

Legal principles established

#
  • Unionisable employees who pay agency fees to a trade union with a recognition and collective bargaining agreement litigate under the same title as the union, and judgments obtained by the union bind them for res judicata purposes
  • Res judicata extends to every point which properly belonged to the subject of the earlier litigation and which could with reasonable diligence have been brought forward
  • The proper avenue where an earlier judgment has not been implemented is enforcement, not fresh litigation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimants' claim is struck out as res judicata
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 27
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 73(2)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 47(1)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Universal Declaration of Human RightsArticles 3 and 7
  • African Charter on Human and People's RightsArticles 3, 24 and 28
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 7
  • Labour Relations ActSection 49
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Section 1B

Cases cited (12)

  • Union of National Research and Allied Institutes Staff of Kenya (UNRISK) vs Kenya Medical Research Institute
    (2017) eKLR
  • TSS Grain Millers vs NIC, High Court Civil Suit No. 13 of 2018
  • Nyanza Garage Ltd vs Attorney General HCC No. 450 of 1993
  • Okiya Omutatah Okoiti & Another vs KEMRI Board of Management, Director & 4 others; Salaries and Remuneration Commission (Interested Party)
    (2019) eKLR
  • E. T. vs The Attorney General & J.N.K., Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 212 of 2011
    (2012) eKLR
  • Kenya Commercial Bank Limited vs Muiri Coffee Estate Limited & Another No. 42 of 2014
    (2016) eKLR
  • John Florence Maritime Services Limited & Concern Cargo Forwarders Ltd vs Cabinet Secretary Transport and Infrastructure & 3 others
  • Hon. Norbert Mao v. Attorney-General, Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 2002
    [2003] UGCC3
  • Hon. Ronald Reagan Okumu v. Attorney-General, Misc. Application No. 0063 of 2002
    High Court HCT 02 CV MA 063 of 2002
  • Omondi vs National Bank of Kenya Limited and Others
    (2001) EA 177
  • Njangu vs Wambugu and Another, Nairobi HCcc No. 2340 of 1991
    (unreported)
  • Henderson vs Henderson
    (1843) ER 313
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act over employment disputes (allowances/pay discrimination claim by KEMRI employees)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Githinji & 131 others v Kenya Medical Research Institute & 6 others (Cause 1545 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 2767 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No. 1545 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2767/eng@2023-10-26

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