Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Real Labour Solutions & another
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that both a labour supplier and the host company must pay workers' union dues, plus a Kshs. 100,000 fine.
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 check-off forms were served
- 2.Whether the claim is properly before the Court and against the proper parties
- 3.Whether the prayers sought are merited and grantable
- 4.Who should pay union dues arrears and effect the deduction and remittance
Key legal issues
#Whether both Respondents are employers of the affected employees
Both Respondents are employers within the meaning of section 2 of the Employment Act; the 2nd Respondent controls and supervises the employees on its premises and meets their salaries through the 1st Respondent.
The Court characterised the arrangement as an outsourcing agreement. The employees are employed by the 1st Respondent to work at the 2nd Respondent's steel plant, where they are under the 2nd Respondent's direct control and supervision, and the 2nd Respondent meets their salaries through the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent also makes all statutory deductions including PAYE, so it cannot pose as a stranger to the dues obligation.
Whether the Respondents' refusal to deduct and remit union dues was lawful
The refusal was unfair and unlawful; the Claimant met the criteria for deduction and the Conciliator recommended deduction, yet the Respondents failed and refused to effect deductions.
The Court found the check-off forms were presented to the 2nd Respondent and deductions were required per the employees' directions. The Conciliator's report indicated the sums were to be deducted and paid. Despite this, the Respondents failed and refused to effect deductions, breaching section 48 of the Labour Relations Act, warranting judgment jointly and severally against both Respondents.
Whether a valid Recognition Agreement exists between the Claimant and the 2nd Respondent
The Court found a Recognition Agreement dated 24 June 2016 exists between the Claimant and the 2nd Respondent, and took judicial note of a Mombasa decision requiring the Respondents to effect union dues deductions.
Despite the 2nd Respondent's submission that the 2016 agreement had expired by its terms and that the judgment in Kisumu ELRC Cause No. 74 of 2013 was never produced, the Court asserted the existence of the Recognition Agreement dated 24 June 2016 and took judicial note of a Mombasa decision requiring deductions, without addressing the expiry argument.
Legal principles established
#- Where employees are employed by one entity to offer services on the premises of another, the nature of the engagement and control exercised determine whether both entities are employers within the meaning of section 2 of the Employment Act.
- An entity that makes deductions and remits statutory obligations on behalf of employees cannot disclaim responsibility for union dues deductions by pretending to be a stranger.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the 1st and 2nd Respondents' refusal to deduct and remit union dues is unfair and unlawful
- 2.An order directing the Respondents to pay, from their own resources, the undeducted union dues from January 2025 until April 2025, comprising Kshs. 59,939/- in union dues, Kshs. 10,958/- and Kshs. 16,416/- in COTU (K) dues, and Kshs. 16,039/- monthly, continuing until satisfaction of the judgment
- 3.Costs of the suit
- 4.Interest at court rates on the sums in order 2 from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 5.A fine of Kshs. 100,000/- to be paid by the Respondents to Court within 14 days for breach of section 48 of the Labour Relations Act
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act over trade disputes and employment relations (Labour Relations Act, sections 48 and 69)
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.
Where an employee is employed to offer services on the premises of another, the character and nature of the engagement go towards determining the control aspects which would infer employment.
In the mind of the Court the two Respondents are employers of the Claimants' members within the meaning of section 2 of the Employment Act.
It does not aid the 1st Respondent to pretend to be a stranger as all deductions are made by it and remitted to the authorities in respect of the employees including, but not limited to PAYE and other obligations.
In the final result the Court enters judgment against the Respondents jointly and severally as follows:
A fine of Kshs. 100,000/- to be paid by the Respondents to Court within 14 days of today for breach of section 48 of the Labour Relations Act.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting case numbers for the recognition judgment: pleadings cite 2023, Respondents and Court refer to 2013.
Court asserts a Recognition Agreement dated 24 June 2016 despite the 2nd Respondent's evidence that it expired after twelve months.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Real Labour Solutions & another", Case Analysis (2026). Cause E092 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2504/eng@2026-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.