Kenya Union of Water & Sewerage Employees v Meru Water & Sewerage Company Limited (Cause E026 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1327 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court refused to order a company to pay a union Kshs.2.64 million in agency fees before trial, saying the amount was unproven.
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 respondent should remit the sum of Kshs.2,640,000 in agency fees to the claimant pending the hearing and determination of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether interim payment of Kshs.2,640,000 in agency fees could be ordered before trial
No - the amount is unproved and is also claimed in the main suit, so the application was premature
The court verified remittance records and found agency fees remitted for January-July 2023 at the minimum Kshs.500, with no evidence of remittances from July 2021 to December 2022 and after July 2023. It was not established that the unremitted fees totalled Kshs.2,640,000, and that sum was itself a claim in the main suit requiring proof at trial. Granting the interim relief would condemn the respondent unheard.
Legal principles established
#- A court should not grant, at interlocutory stage, payment of a sum that must be proved at trial, as that would condemn a party unheard
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 5th July 2024 is dismissed
- 2.The parties are directed to fix the matter for hearing for determination of the reliefs sought
- 3.Costs of the motion shall be 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 over the registered Collective Bargaining Agreement (RCA No. 99 of 2020) and the Cabinet Secretary's order under section 49 of the Labour Relations Act
Relief refused
#Order compelling the respondent to deduct and remit agency fees of Kshs.2,640,000 / deposit the same in court pending hearing and determination
The sum claimed was not shown to represent the unremitted agency fees and is also claimed in the main suit; granting it would be premature and would condemn the respondent unheard
Costs
Costs of the motion shall be 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.
The main issue for determination herein is whether the respondent should remit the sum of Kshs.2,640,000 to the claimant pending the hearing and determination of the suit herein.
Granting the prayer for the said sum would therefore be premature and tantamount to condemning the respondent unheard.
I dismiss the Application and direct the parties to fix the matter for hearing in order for the court to make a determination on the reliefs sought. Costs of the motion shall be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not print the parties' full names; they are referred to only as 'the applicant'/'claimant' and 'the respondent'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Water & Sewerage Employees v Meru Water & Sewerage Company Limited (Cause E026 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1327 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Ruling in Notice of Motion dated 5th July 2024 (ELRC, Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1327/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.