Kenya Private Universities Workers Union v Marist International University College [2026] KEELRC 15058 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI

CAUSE NO. E1126 OF 2025

KENYA PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

WORKERS UNION……………………………CLAIMANT/APPLICANT

VERSUS

MARIST INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE.…..RESPONDENT

RULING

1. For determination is the Claimant/Applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated 17th November, 2025, brought pursuant to Section 74 of the Labour Relations Act 2007, and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2016, where the Applicant seeks the following reliefs: -

i. Spent

ii. THAT the Honourable Court do and hereby issue an order against the Respondent to allow Applicant union officials access to Respondent premises to organize and recruit new members to join the Claimant/Applicant union until the hearing and determination of this suit, as it has been for the last eight years, from 2017 to April 2025.

iii. THAT the Honourable Court do and hereby issue an Order against the Respondent herein to re-effect Union dues deduction from the Applicant/Claimant members and remit the same to the Claimant's/Applicant gazetted account as it has been since 2017 to April 2025.

iv. THA T,the Honorable Court do hereby issue prohibitory order against the Respondent restraining herself or agents from victimizing/threatening her employees or Claimant members on ground of Trade union activities pending the hearing and determination of this suit as it has been since 2017 to April 2025..

v. THAT, the Respondent be compelled to pay outstanding union dues that he has refused to deduct and remit, as it has been since 2017 to April 2025, from his own pocket plus interest at court rate.

vi. THAT the cost of this Application to the Claimant/Applicant.

2. The application is supported by grounds on the face of the Motion and the affidavit of Mr. Peter Emisembe Owiti sworn on 17th November, 2025.

3. The Applicant contends that the Respondent unlawfully stopped deducting and remitting union dues despite the practice having been consistently observed by the former principal for eight years since 2017.

4. The Applicant contends that the deduction and remittance of union dues is a mandatory legal obligation under Sections 48 and 50 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007, and that the Respondent unlawfully stopped remitting union dues without providing any lawful justification.

5. It argues that under Section 56 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007, the Respondent is required to grant the Union reasonable access to its premises to undertake lawful union activities, including holding meetings with members, a practice that was observed for eight years since 2017.

6. It is the Applicant’s position that Sections 19 and 46(c)–(f) of the Employment Act, 2007 protect employees' rights regarding authorized wage deductions and prohibit victimization on account of trade union membership or activities.

7. The Applicant maintains that the Court's intervention is necessary to safeguard the Claimant and its members' rights and secure justice.

8. The Applicant therefore seeks interim orders in terms of prayers 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Notice of Motion, pending the hearing and determination of the suit, arguing that failure to grant the orders would occasion irreparable harm to the Union and its members.

9. The Respondent opposed the Motion vide a replying affidavit sworn by BRO. Lukong Francis Yufenyu on 13th February, 2026.

10. The Respondent contends that it is a non-profit making Christian institution of higher learning within the Catholic Church, largely supported by Catholic donors, and established to promote the academic and spiritual welfare of students locally and internationally.

11. The Respondent disputes the Applicant's assertion that court intervention is necessary to facilitate union meetings and recruitment, maintaining that employees have historically joined the Union freely and made contributions, which have been duly remitted to the Applicant, as evidenced by the annexed payment receipts.

12. The Respondent denies obstructing employees from joining the Applicant Union, terming the allegations false and misleading. It maintains that it has consistently deducted and remitted union dues, has no outstanding arrears, and has faithfully honoured its obligations to the Applicant.

13. The Respondent further maintains that the Applicant's request for orders facilitating recruitment of new union members is unjustified, arguing that some workers, including priests, brothers and superiors, are non-salaried. It reiterates that it permits eligible employees to join the Union and facilitates deduction and remittance of their union dues, with no outstanding arrears or deductions withheld.

14. Parties canvassed the motion through written submissions which have been duly considered.

Analysis and Determination

15. The issue for determination is whether the Applicant has established grounds for the grant of the interim orders sought, namely, access to the Respondent's premises for union recruitment, deduction and remittance of union dues, protection against victimization and payment of alleged outstanding union dues.

16. In granting interlocutory injunctions, the court is guided by the principles set out in Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358, and subsequently clarified by the Court of Appeal in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others [2013] KECA 347 (KLR), which are that an Applicant must establish a prima facie case, demonstrate that it stands to suffer irreparable injury and, where necessary, show that the balance of convenience favours the grant of the orders sought.

17. Article 41(2)(c) of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007 guarantee employees the right to join and participate in the activities of trade unions. Further, Section 56 of the Act entitles trade union officials to reasonable access to an employer's premises for lawful union activities, including recruitment and meetings outside working hours.

18. In Kenya Private Universities Workers Union v Management University of Africa [2021] KEELRC 1083 (KLR), the Court affirmed that an employer cannot deny a trade union reasonable access to its premises merely because it has not concluded a recognition agreement with the Union, but the Union must show an actual denial of access that warrants judicial intervention.

19. The Applicant’s position is that the Respondent stopped facilitating union activities and remitting dues in April 2025. The Respondent denies these allegations, maintaining that employees freely joined the Claimant Union and that it has remitted all dues collected. It also exhibited receipts supporting its position.

20. Sections 48 and 50 of the Labour Relations Act impose statutory obligations on an employer served with the requisite ministerial order and valid check-off instructions. In Kenya Private Universities Workers Union v Management University of Africa (Cause E6502 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1433 (KLR), the Court affirmed the employer's obligation to continue remitting dues for employees who remain union members and have not withdrawn their membership.

21. In light of the foregoing, the Respondent cannot lawfully discontinue authorized deductions without justification. Similarly, the Applicant must establish the existence of a subsisting ministerial order and valid check-off forms covering the employees concerned, since the Respondent's obligation is limited to employees who remain members of the Union.

22. On the claim for outstanding dues, the Applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated the specific amounts deducted but withheld or the amounts allegedly due for periods when no deductions were made. This claim therefore requires verification through payroll records and remittance statements, which can be made at the hearing of the main suit.

23. On victimization, Section 46(c) of the Employment Act, 2007 protects employees against termination on account of their participation in trade union activities. From the evidence adduced, however, the Applicant has not identified any employee who has been threatened, intimidated, or victimized. In Kenya Private Universities Workers Union v Management University of Africa (Supra), the Court declined similar protective orders in the absence of evidence of actual victimization.

24. I therefore find and hold that, while the law protects trade union activities and obliges employers to facilitate lawful union membership and remittance of dues, the Applicant must demonstrate an actual infringement to warrant the interim mandatory orders sought.

25. In conclusion, the Claimant/Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2025, partly succeeds, in terms of the following orders:

a) That the Respondent shall continue deducting and remitting union dues in respect of employees who remain members of the Applicant Union.

b) That the Respondent shall not unlawfully interfere with its employees' constitutional right to join or participate in the activities of the Applicant Union.

c) The prayers for mandatory access to the Respondent's premises, payment of alleged outstanding union dues and an injunction against victimization are declined.

d) These orders shall apply to ELRCC No. E1127 OF 2025 that arises from a similar set of facts.

e) I make no orders on costs.

26. It is so ordered.

SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026.

C. N. BAARI

JUDGE

Appearance:

N/A for the Claimant/Applicant

Mr. Gitange present for the Respondent

Ms. Esther S -C