Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 22nd May 2024 in an ELRC claim)· [2024] KEELRC 1690 (KLR)

Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology (MMUST) Chapter v Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology (MMUST) (Cause E018 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1690 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 June 2024
3,440 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan university cannot force academic staff to retire at 70 when a registered CBA sets retirement at 74, absent employee consultation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant union, Kenya University Staff Union, moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kakamega by Notice of Motion dated 22nd May 2024 seeking a temporary injunction restraining Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology from retiring its academic staff members who have attained 70 years, pending hearing of the application and the main claim. The union contended that retirement notices issued to six named staff contravened the CBA for 1st July 2013 to 30th June 2017, signed on 15th January 2020 and registered in court, whose clause 30.0(ii) caps the mandatory retirement age for academic staff at 74 years. The Respondent opposed, relying on the MMUST Statutes 2022 (Statute 39(9)) which fix retirement at 70 for junior academic ranks and 74 for professors, and argued that a CBA cannot override statute or public policy. The court framed one issue: whether the application was merited. Holding that the CBA was negotiated and registered before the 2022 Statute, that CBA terms are incorporated into individual contracts under sections 26(1) of the Employment Act and 59 of the Labour Relations Act, and that a university council statute does not enjoy the status of an Act of Parliament, the court found the unilateral variation of retirement terms unlawful absent consultation as required by section 10(5) of the Employment Act. It however affirmed that service beyond the compulsory retirement age of 74 is against public policy. The application was allowed with an interim injunction restraining retirement before age 74; each party was ordered to bear its own costs, and pretrial directions were set for 16th July 2024.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the MMUST Statute 2022 can supersede the registered CBA fixing retirement age at 74 years

Holding

The CBA supersedes the Statute; the unilateral change of retirement terms was unlawful as there was no consultation and the CBA conformed with public policy on retirement.

Reasoning

The CBA was negotiated, signed on 15 January 2020 and registered by the court, two years before the 2022 Statute. Under section 26(1) of the Employment Act more favourable CBA terms prevail, and under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act CBA terms are incorporated into individual contracts. Section 10(5) of the Employment Act requires consultation before varying contractual terms. No such consultation was shown, so the Statute's unilateral variation was unlawful.

02

Whether members may serve beyond the compulsory retirement age

Holding

Continuation in service beyond the compulsory retirement age of 74 years for academic staff is against public policy; the Respondent may enforce retirement at 74 for those who have attained it.

Reasoning

The court agreed with the Respondent that public officers cannot continue in service beyond the compulsory retirement age. The compulsory age applicable to academic staff is 74 years per the CBA, consistent with government policy as restated in the KUDHEIHA case. Retirement notices based on age 70, contrary to the CBA, could not stand, but retirement at 74 remains enforceable.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • A registered CBA providing more favourable terms to employees supersedes a university council statute; a university statute does not enjoy the status of an Act of Parliament and cannot unilaterally vary negotiated employment terms.
  • By dint of section 26(1) of the Employment Act, a CBA providing more favourable terms supersedes less favourable statutory-term conditions set by the employer.
  • CBA terms form part of employees' contracts and can only be varied after consultation with employees and amendment of the CBA.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Interim order restraining the Respondent from retiring or threatening to retire the Applicant's members until they attain the age of 74 years pending the hearing of the claim
  2. 2.Leave to the Respondent to enforce compulsory retirement age of 74 years for members who have already attained that age as per the CBA
  3. 3.Each party to bear its own costs in the application
  4. 4.Parties to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  5. 5.Pretrial directions in the claim on 16th July 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 10 and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology (MMUST) Chapter v Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology (MMUST) (Cause E018 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1690 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 22nd May 2024 in an ELRC claim). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1690/eng@2024-06-27

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