Public Transport Operators Union v Kariobangi Matatu Owners Sacco; National Transport and Safety Authority (Interested Party) (Cause E143 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 240 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a matatu Sacco must deduct and remit its drivers' union dues, though it won't pay past arrears from its own pocket.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent Sacco is the employer of the drivers and conductors
The court held the respondent is the employer under Regulation 5 of Legal Notice 23 of 2014, supported by employment badges produced in court designating the respondent as employer
The court applied the written law as it is, noting the respondent itself acknowledged the provisions of Regulation No. 5 which require a body corporate operating PSVs to have staff in its employment including drivers, a code of conduct for employees, and compliance with labour laws. The claimant also produced sample badges issued to members by the respondent indicating the respondent as the employer.
Whether the respondent ought to deduct and remit trade union dues
Yes. Having received check-off forms, the respondent was obliged to deduct and remit dues; failure violated the employees' constitutional right to unionise under Article 41
RW1 admitted receiving the check-off forms in 2015 and forms for 2021-2022 were produced. Section 48 of the Labour Relations Act obligates an employer of more than five union members to deduct dues within thirty days of Form S being served. The court found no viable reason for non-deduction and held employees' rights cannot depend on the consent of the respondent's members. The conciliator's 2016 recommendation supporting the union was noted.
Whether the arrears of unremitted dues should be paid from the respondent's coffers
No. The prayer for arrears was rejected
Under section 48 of the Labour Relations Act dues are deducted from employees' wages and cannot be backdated without the employees' consent. No such consent was before the court, so the court rejected the invitation to order payment of arrears from the respondent's own funds.
Whether a recognition agreement existed and whether CBA negotiations should be directed
The court found a recognition agreement in place since only the National Labour Board could revoke it; but declined to direct consultative meetings toward a CBA as premature under section 57
RW2 denied signing the recognition agreement, but the court held that a disputed recognition agreement can only be revoked by the National Labour Board under section 54(5), which the respondent had not done. On the CBA, section 57 provides an alternative remedy through the Minister for conciliation, which the claimant had not invoked, making the claim premature.
Legal principles established
#- Under Regulation No. 5 of the NTSA (Operation of Public Service Vehicles) Regulations, Legal Notice 23 of 2014, a body corporate operating public service vehicles is deemed the employer of the drivers of the PSVs operated by its member owners
- Once an employer receives check-off forms (Form S) and the union has complied with section 48 of the Labour Relations Act, the employer must deduct and remit union dues; the rights of employees cannot be pegged to the consent of the employer's members
- A disputed recognition agreement can only be set aside by the National Labour Board under section 54(5) of the Labour Relations Act, not collaterally in court
- Arrears of union dues cannot be ordered to be backdated and paid from the employer's own coffers without the employees' consent
Court orders
#- 1.The respondent is directed to make deductions and continue deducting and remitting the union dues as per the authority to deduct from members who subscribed to become members of the claimant's union in accordance with the check-off forms in place
- 2.The claimant is awarded reasonable costs payable by the respondent at an all-inclusive figure of Kshs. 30,000 to be paid within 30 days of the judgment
- 3.Stay granted for 30 days
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over trade disputes under the Labour Relations Act and the Employment Act (not expressly cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Public Transport Operators Union v Kariobangi Matatu Owners Sacco; National Transport and Safety Authority (Interested Party) (Cause E143 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 240 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E143 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/240/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.