Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNairobi ERLC Cause No. 601 of 2016· [2025] KEELRC 1377 (KLR)

Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Ideal Security Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 601 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 1377 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 May 2025
JKJ. W. Keli
5,071 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~20 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ordered a security firm to start deducting and remitting union dues, but refused back-pay because the union filed its case too early.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant union, registered to represent employees in the private security industry, filed a memorandum of claim dated 12 April 2016 seeking orders that the respondent security company deduct and remit union dues under section 48 of the Labour Relations Act, deposit the dues in the union's gazetted account, and refrain from intimidating, victimising or harassing workers engaged in union activity. The respondent opposed the claim, asserting that some employees signed check-off forms under deception, that some signatures were forged, that some signatories had resigned or were no longer its employees, and that the statutory notice under section 48(3) was never properly served. The court framed four issues: eligibility of the employees to join the union; victimisation, intimidation and harassment; payment of dues not deducted; and entitlement to the reliefs sought. The court held that eligibility was settled, private security personnel being properly represented by the claimant union. The claimant's signed check-off forms, whose receipt the respondent acknowledged, were uncontroverted evidence of recruitment, and the respondent's forgery claims were unsupported. The court found the victimisation claim unproven on a balance of probabilities. It held the claim for unremitted dues was premature, filed before the thirty days for commencement of deductions under section 48(3) had lapsed, but that the deductions were due. The court ordered the respondent to deduct and remit union dues for employees in service who signed the check-off forms from the salary of May, subject to section 48(6) resignations, deposit the dues in the union's gazetted account within 30 days, continue deductions thereafter, and notify the union of any resignations. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs given the premature filing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondent's unionisable employees were eligible members of the claimant union

Holding

Eligibility was not in dispute; private security personnel are properly represented by the claimant union, a position treated as settled.

Reasoning

The court noted the respondent is a private security company and that a prior decision cited by Justice Nduma in Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v G4S Security Services Kenya Ltd had ordered that private security personnel be represented by the claimant union. The respondent did not seriously contest eligibility.

p. 4
02

Whether the claimant had complied with section 48 of the Labour Relations Act to justify deductions

Holding

The claimant had complied by serving signed Form S check-off forms, receipt of which the respondent acknowledged.

Reasoning

The court found the claimant produced duly signed check-off forms and that the respondent admitted service. The respondent's claims of forgery and that the forms did not disclose employee titles were unsupported by evidence and amounted to afterthoughts. Upon service, the employer's sole role was to commence deductions within thirty days, subject only to written resignations under section 48(6).

p. 9
03

Whether there was victimization, intimidation or harassment of unionisable members

Holding

No victimization, intimidation or harassment was established.

Reasoning

Resignation letters dated a few days before filing the response aroused the court's suspicion, and the respondent never notified the union of resignations as required by section 48(8). However, the claimant produced no evidence of threats, and the court's suspicions fell short of the balance-of-probabilities threshold required to make a finding.

p. 10
04

Whether the respondent should pay union dues not deducted from the date the check-off forms were signed

Holding

Refused; the claim was premature when filed.

Reasoning

The court had held the suit was filed before the thirty-day period in section 48(3) lapsed, so no cause existed against the employer at filing. The court could only give effect to deductions from the present, ordering deductions and remittance going forward rather than arrear payments.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a trade union has served Form S (check-off forms) signed by employees and the employer acknowledges receipt, the employer's only lawful role is to commence deduction and remittance of union dues within thirty days, save where the employee has resigned under section 48(6).
  • An employer may only decline to deduct union dues on the grounds prescribed in section 48(6)-(8) of the Labour Relations Act, namely written notice of resignation, and must forward such notice to the union.
  • A claim for unremitted deductions is premature where filed before the thirty days for commencement of deductions under section 48(3) have lapsed.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent to deduct and remit union dues from unionisable employees in service who signed the check-off forms, from the salary of the month of May, and remit the dues subject to section 48(6) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2.The deducted monies to be deposited in the Claimant's Gazetted Bank Account within 30 days of the judgment.
  3. 3.The Respondent to continue making union deductions and remittances thereafter and for any other recruited members.
  4. 4.The Respondent to notify the union formally on receipt of a resignation of any member from the union.
  5. 5.Each party to bear its own costs in the suit.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 36(1) - freedom of association
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 41 - labour relations rights
  • Labour Relations ActSection 19
  • Labour Relations ActSection 46(c)(d)(e)(f)
  • Labour Relations ActSection 48 (including subsections 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8)
  • Labour Relations ActSection 54
  • Employment ActSection 19(1)(f)(g)

Cases cited (2)

  • Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v G4S Security Services Kenya Ltd
    Industrial Court, Nairobi cause No. 106 of 2011
  • Kudheiha Workers Union versus Aga Khan University Hospital
    (2015) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference to the Industrial Court under the Labour Relations Act, Part VIII (Section 54(7))

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Ideal Security Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 601 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 1377 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi ERLC Cause No. 601 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1377/eng@2025-05-09

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