Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMemorandum of Claim dated 3rd October 2019· [2025] KEELRC 1 (KLR)

Tailors and Textiles Workers Union v Vajas Manufacturers Limited (Cause 680 of 2012) [2025] KEELRC 1 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
16 January 2025
LNLINNET NDOLO
544 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a union's claim for terminal dues because the employee was never a union member, so the Collective Bargaining Agreement did not apply to him.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant Union sued on behalf of its member, Collince Otieno Onyunka (the Grievant), seeking terminal dues of Kshs. 409,230.80, being 19 days' pay for each completed year of service under clause 10 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a certificate of service under Section 51 of the Employment Act, and 12 months' salary as damages for breach of clause 7 of the CBA. The Claimant alleged that the Grievant was employed from October 2005, worked for 14 years, and resigned with effect from 31st January 2019 without being paid his terminal dues. The Respondent admitted employing the Grievant as a Tourist Sales Executive but contended employment ran from October 2009 to January 2019, that his exit salary was Kshs. 43,255, that all terminal dues under his contract were paid, and that throughout his employment the Grievant was not a member of the Union. It submitted that a non-union member cannot claim under a CBA to which he was not a party, relying on Banking Insurance and Finance Union v Middle East Bank (K) Limited. The matter proceeded by consent on pleadings and written submissions. The court found that the Claimant did not adduce any evidence to counter the Respondent's assertion that the Grievant was not unionised, so the claim premised on the CBA was not proved. The claim was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a non-union member employee can claim terminal dues under a CBA

Holding

No. The Grievant was not a member of the Union during employment, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, he could not benefit from the CBA's provisions

Reasoning

The claim was founded entirely on clause 10 of the CBA. The Respondent pleaded and submitted that the Grievant was never a union member and that the right to unionise may be restricted through a CBA, employment contract or Industrial Relations Charter, relying on BIFU v Middle East Bank. The Claimant adduced no evidence to counter the assertion that the Grievant was not unionised. The claim premised on the CBA therefore was not proved and failed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A non-union member cannot lay a claim under a CBA to which they were not a party, and a party asserting entitlement under a CBA must prove entitlement

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party will bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 51

Cases cited (1)

  • Banking Insurance and Finance Union v Middle East Bank (K) Limited
    [2020] KEELRC 1869 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court original jurisdiction over employment dispute

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tailors and Textiles Workers Union v Vajas Manufacturers Limited (Cause 680 of 2012) [2025] KEELRC 1 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 3rd October 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1/eng@2025-01-16

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