Kenya Universities Staff Union, Egerton University Branch v Egerton University & 2 others; Kenya Universities Staff Union (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E026 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 902 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court refused to stop Egerton University's planned redundancy, saying the union should first have sat down and consulted with the employer.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicants have locus to file this suit
- 2.Whether the application is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant branch has locus standi to file the suit on behalf of its members
The applicants, being a registered branch of the union, have locus standi to institute the claim/application
The court relied on its own prior decision (Republic v Registrar of Trade Unions Ex Parte UASU Egerton University Chapter) and LSK Nairobi Branch v Malindi LSK, which relied on the Mumo Matemo case on the enlarged scope of locus standi under Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution. The court reaffirmed that a registered branch chapter of a union may institute proceedings on its own motion.
Whether the notice of 21st December 2022 was a redundancy notice under section 40 of the Employment Act and whether the injunction should issue
The notice was only a notice of intention to declare redundancy, not a redundancy notice under section 40; the application was premature because the applicants declined the invitation to consult and the court declined to grant the injunction
The court examined the notice of 21st December 2022 and found it contained no date of termination and no indication of the extent of the redundancy; it was an invitation to negotiate. Section 40 envisages a notice with a definite time frame served on the union and the labour office. Since the applicants declined the invite to engage, they failed to adhere to the procedures envisaged under section 40 of the Employment Act and filed prematurely.
Legal principles established
#- A registered branch of a trade union has locus standi to institute proceedings on its own motion
- A notice of intention to declare redundancy is not the redundancy notice contemplated by section 40 of the Employment Act; upon such notice of intention, parties must engage in consultation before the process matures
Court orders
#- 1.The application is found unmerited and the orders sought (temporary injunction restraining the redundancy process) are declined
- 2.The parties are asked to continue engaging with a view of resolving the matter
- 3.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act (not expressly cited as a jurisdictional provision in the ruling)
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from proceeding with the redundancy process pursuant to the notice of intention to declare redundancy dated 21st December 2022
The notice of 21st December 2022 was not a redundancy notice under section 40 of the Employment Act but an invitation to consult; the applicants declined the invitation to engage and filed the application prematurely
Costs
Costs in the cause
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
This issue is therefore resolved with a verdict that the applicants have locus standi to institute this claim/application.
My examination of this notice, afirm that this cannot be referred to as a redundancy Notice as envisaged under section 40 of the Employment Act
I find the application is therefore unmerited and decline to grant the orders sought and ask the parties to continue engaging with a view of resolving this matter.
Costs in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently spells the union acronym (KUSU/KRUSE) and refers to a letter dated 6/6/2022 where the quoted reference and submissions indicate 6/6/2023
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Universities Staff Union, Egerton University Branch v Egerton University & 2 others; Kenya Universities Staff Union (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E026 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 902 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of motion dated 19th June 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/902/eng@2024-04-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.