Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Applicant (Kenya Union of Domestic Hotels, Educational Institutions and Hospital Workers) sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Respondents (United States International University - Africa and its Vice Chancellor) from implementing a redundancy process. The Applicant argued the redundancy notices (dated 25.1.2021) violated the Employment Act 2007 and Constitution 2010 by failing to properly consult the union. The Respondents claimed they complied with legal procedures and the application was premature. The court dismissed the injunction application, finding the Applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of legal rights infringement and that the redundancy process was lawful at the notice stage.
Issues
- The Applicant's request for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Respondents from proceeding with redundancy, arguing non-compliance with section 40 of the Employment Act, versus the Respondents' claim of compliance and the court's consideration of the Applicant's failure to demonstrate a prima facie case.
- The Applicant's ability to represent its members in court without a formal recognition agreement under the Labour Relations Act, as per the Respondents' argument and the Applicant's unaddressed stance on this matter.
Holdings
- The court held that the Applicant has locus standi to sue on behalf of its members, as membership in a trade union grants the right to represent members in legal proceedings, even without a formal recognition agreement.
- The application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed because the Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of legal rights infringement, and the redundancy process complied with statutory procedures under section 40 of the Employment Act. The court also found no irreparable harm or imbalance of convenience to justify the injunction.
Remedies
The application was dismissed with costs as the court found no breach of legal rights and no irreparable harm demonstrated.
Legal Principles
- The court applied the principles for granting an interlocutory injunction, requiring the applicant to demonstrate a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and a balance of convenience. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case, leading to the dismissal of the injunction application.
- The applicant was required to prove a prima facie case of legal rights infringement, which the court determined was not met. The burden of proof for irreparable harm and balance of convenience was also not satisfied.
Precedent Name
- Team Accounting Limited v Judith Brake
- Gerrishom Mukhutsi Obayo v DSV Air and Sea Limited
- Modern Soap Factory v Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union
- Kenya Hotels and Allied Workers Union v Nairobi Gymkhana Club
- Eastleigh Mattress Limited v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Labour Social Security and Services & ano
- Banking Insurance and Finance Union (Kenya) v Kirinyaga District Co-operative Union Ltd & ano
- Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Africa Metal Workers Limited
Cited Statute
- Labour Relations Act
- International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 158 Termination of Employment Convention 1982
- Employment Act 2007
- ILO Recommendation No. 119 Termination of Employment Recommendation 1963
- Constitution of Kenya 2010
Judge Name
Onesmus N. Makau
Passage Text
- consequently, the application is dismissed with costs.
- Guided by the foregoing binding precedent, I proceed to hold that the Applicant has the locus standi to sue on behalf of its members.
- It is now trite law that an employer is free to organize its operations to realize profits provided that it does so within the mandatory procedures set out under the law which provides safeguards to the employees' rights. In this case, the respondent has not established that the impugned redundancy has breached or is about to breach the legal rights of its members.