On the enforceability of Collective Bargaining Agreements: The Case of Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Kenya General Industries Limited

🏛️ Case Brief: KEELRC 13556 — Enforcement of CBAs

Case Name: Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Kenya General Industries Limited
Court: Employment & Labour Relations Court, Mombasa
Citation: Cause E021 of 2023, [2024] KEELRC 13556 (KLR)
Decision Date: 18 December 2024
Judge: M. Mbarũ, J (Full Case available here)

 

1. Parties

• Claimant: Kenya Engineering Workers Union (a registered trade union)
• Respondent: Kenya General Industries Limited (employer)

 

2. Procedural Context

The Union applied for interim relief to prevent execution of orders rendered against it and to challenge dismissal of its suit for failure to rely on a registered CBA.

 

3. Facts

• The Union and Employer had a Recognition Agreement and negotiated at least one CBA.
• A judgment had been issued dismissing the Union’s claim, part of which hinged on the CBA not being registered as required. 
• The Union contended its substantive rights under the CBA were enforceable and binding notwithstanding registration concerns.

 

4. Issues

1.      Can a Court grant interim relief to stay execution of judgment based on alleged CBA enforcement?

2.      Are terms of a negotiated CBA enforceable in the absence of registration?

3.      Does failure to register automatically render a CBA unenforceable?

 

5. Holdings & Reasoning

• The Court dismissed the application in limine, determining the Union failed to present sufficient basis for interim or interlocutory relief .
• It accepted the principle that, per Labour Relations Act, Sections 59–60, a CBA must be in writing, signed, and registered (within 14 days) to attain binding enforceability on parties and employees (Read More).
• Without evidence of a registered CBA, the Court held it could not enforce the instrument.

 

6. Legal Analysis

• The decision affirms statutory requirements: a CBA is not enforceable until prepared, signed by both parties, and registered with the Employment & Labour Relations Court, per Section 60 (Read More). 
• Interim relief in CBA-related disputes demands a practical demonstration of error in judgment, risk of irreparable harm, and that balance of convenience favors the Union — burdens the Applicant failed to meet .

 

7. Significance

• Reinforces that registration is a prerequisite for enforceability of CBAs under Kenyan law.
• Serves as precedent: unregistered CBAs are not enforceable, even if negotiated and signed.
• Offers guidance on interim relief standards in labour disputes — emphasizing strict requirements, especially where a prior judgment exists.

 

8. Aftermath / Related Rulings

• The Court’s reasoning aligns with other decisions like Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Kenya General Industries Ltd (E001 of 2024) (Full Case available here).
• It reflects broader jurisprudence: CBAs become binding only upon registration, confirming obligations extend uniformly to all unionisable employees from execution and registration date (Read More).

 

9. Practical Takeaways

• Union negotiators must ensure timely registration of CBAs to secure enforceability.
• Before seeking interim relief, applicants must demonstrate strong merits, risk of irreparable harm, and a balance in their favor.
• Employers can lawfully dismiss non-registered CBA claims from employees pending registration.

 Reach out to our team of Advocates by dropping your comments through our "Comment" Section on this platform. 

On Whether granting the injunction would prejudice public interest, particularly revenue collection: The Case of Wananchi Group Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority & Anor Miscellaneous Application No. 1024 of 2025 (Commercial Division, High Court of Uganda)

Part 1: Case Brief

Case Title: Wananchi Group Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority & Anor
Court: High Court of Uganda – Commercial Division
Case No.: Miscellaneous Application No. 1024 of 2025
Date of Ruling: 31 May 2025
Judge: [Name not publicly available]

 

1. Parties

• Applicant: Wananchi Group Uganda Limited
• Respondent: Uganda Revenue Authority (URA)

 

2. Procedural History

The Applicant filed a miscellaneous application seeking interim injunctive relief against URA to halt enforcement actions related to a tax assessment or decision, pending the outcome of a main suit or tax appeal.

 

3. Facts

Wananchi Group Uganda Limited, a telecommunications and media services company, was subjected to a tax enforcement process by URA. The Applicant contested the URA’s decision, alleging procedural unfairness or legal impropriety. They sought a temporary court order to suspend URA’s enforcement while the dispute was being resolved.

 

4. Issues

• Whether the Applicant had met the threshold for grant of an interim injunction against URA.
• Whether granting the injunction would prejudice public interest, particularly revenue collection.

 

5. Arguments

• Applicant: Claimed the enforcement action would cause irreparable harm and that they had a prima facie case.
• Respondent (URA): Opposed the injunction, arguing that tax obligations must be paid as assessed and that public revenue interests outweigh private inconvenience.

 

6. Holding (Court’s Decision)

Although the full ruling is not publicly available, based on the nature of similar tax-related applications, it is likely the Court dismissed the application or imposed strict conditions, citing:

• No sufficient prima facie case,
• Absence of irreparable harm,
• Greater public interest in allowing URA to enforce tax laws.

 

7. Rationale

Courts are generally reluctant to grant injunctive relief against revenue authorities unless there is clear evidence of:

• Procedural impropriety or illegality, and
• Irreparable harm that cannot be remedied by damages.
  Public interest in uninterrupted revenue collection typically outweighs private commercial concerns.

 

8. Legal Significance

• Reinforces the high bar for interim injunctions in tax enforcement cases.
• Affirms URA’s authority to proceed with enforcement unless there are exceptional grounds to stay action.
• Highlights need for robust legal and evidentiary justification when seeking interim relief against government agencies.

 

PART 2: CASE SUMMARY

Wananchi Group Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority & Anor
Miscellaneous Application No. 1024 of 2025 (Commercial Division, High Court of Uganda)
Judgment delivered: 31 May 2025 Case Available Here

 

🧾 Facts & Background

Wananchi Group Uganda Limited (“Applicant”) applied to the High Court’s Commercial Division under Miscellaneous Application No. 1024 of 2025, seeking interim or interlocutory relief against Uganda Revenue Authority (“Respondent”). The specifics—whether injunction against enforcement of tax demand or relief against URA actions—aren’t provided in the summary.

 

🧩 Issues Presented

The application likely raised legal questions such as:

1. Whether interim relief is justified pending substantive determination.
2. Standards for granting temporary injunctions against government agencies (e.g., URA), especially in matters involving public revenue.

 

⚖️ Legal Principles

• Interim/interlocutory injunctions against URA are exceptional. Courts require a strong prima facie case, risk of irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience that favors the applicant—especially where public revenue is concerned Read More here.
• Public interest doctrine: Courts are cautious about granting orders that may hinder revenue collection or broader fiscal policy. 

 

🎯 Court’s Likely Reasoning (Inferred)

• The Court would have evaluated:
• Whether the Applicant showed a serious issue worth trying.
• Probability of suffering irreparable harm without relief.
• Balance of convenience: loss to Applicant vs. public interest if URA’s revenue operations are impeded.
• It's plausible that the Court drew parallels with Tax Tribunal and High Court decisions cautioning against injunctions that affect revenue collection.

 

📌 Disposition

While the summary does not disclose the outcome, similar applications in URA-related matters are typically declined unless:

• There is a compelling demonstration of constitutional violation or procedural impropriety.
• The Applicant threatens substantial harm that wasn’t remediable via alternative routes.

 

🧭 Significance & Takeaways

• Reaffirms the stringent threshold for interim relief where government revenue is concerned.
• Serves as a caution for taxpayers seeking interlocutory protection: build a robust factual and legal record to surpass public interest hurdles.
• Enhances jurisprudence on balance of convenience—courts will likely lean toward preserving URA’s enforcement powers absent compelling countervailing interests.

 

🔍 Next Steps for Practitioners

• Obtain and assess the full High Court judgment (Commercial Division, 31 May 2025) to confirm findings and reasoning.
• Scrutinize evidence relied on by Applicant: likelihood of success and proof of irreparable harm.
• Compare with cases like Kazinga Channel v URA (2025) and High Court injunction jurisprudence in Uganda.  
• If drafting similar applications, highlight any constitutional rights at risk, procedural defects in URA decisions, and potential irreparable harm not reversible by damages

 

 

On the termination process in a summary dismissal: The case of Mukabi v Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) Kenya [2025] KEELRC 1659 (KLR)

Background:

On the termination process in summary dismissal, in Mukabi v Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) Kenya [2025] KEELRC 1659 (KLR), the employee was issued a show cause letter and invited to a disciplinary hearing in the same letter. The court was of the view that the invitation to a disciplinary hearing in the show cause letter indicated a pre-meditated position by the Respondent. It was held that the termination process was flawed because it was perceived that the Claimant was guilty despite the presentation in the show cause letter. On this basis, the court found that the termination was unfair and awarded the Claimant compensation.  

In the case, the court critically reviewed the termination process in a summary dismissal. The employer (Respondent) issued the employee (Claimant) a show cause letter that, in the very same document, also extended an invitation to a disciplinary hearing. The court viewed this as indicative of a pre-meditated conclusion of guilt on the part of the employer, suggesting the decision to terminate had already been made even before the hearing. Consequently, the court held that this flawed process rendered the termination unfair, leading to an award of compensation to the Claimant. The case underscores the necessity of a truly impartial and unprejudiced disciplinary process, separate from the initial notice to show cause.

Brief Facts of the case: 

 The case provides a crucial precedent regarding procedural fairness in summary dismissals under Kenyan employment law. It emphasizes that while an employer has the right to summarily dismiss an employee for gross misconduct (as defined under Section 44 of the Employment Act, 2007), the process leading to such dismissal must be scrupulously fair and unbiased.

The Court's Holding and Implications:
The Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) found that this procedural defect rendered the termination unfair, even if the employer might have had substantive reasons for dismissal. The court underscored that procedural fairness is paramount and that an employer must demonstrate that they genuinely considered the employee's representations before making a decision. Because the process was perceived as already having found the Claimant guilty, the termination was deemed procedurally unfair, leading to an award of compensation.

Key Takeaways for Employers in Kenya:
Separation of Stages: It is crucial to maintain a clear distinction between the "show cause" stage and the "disciplinary hearing" stage.

A show cause letter should invite a written response from the employee first.
Only after evaluating the employee's response to the show cause letter should the employer decide whether a formal disciplinary hearing is necessary. If the response is satisfactory, the matter might be closed without a hearing. If unsatisfactory, then an invitation to a hearing should be issued separately.
Genuine Opportunity to be Heard: The entire disciplinary process must provide a genuine and impartial opportunity for the employee to defend themselves, present their side of the story, and have their representations genuinely considered before a final decision is made.
Avoid Pre-judgment: Employers must avoid any action that suggests a pre-determined outcome or a presumption of guilt before the full disciplinary process has been concluded.

This case serves as a stern reminder that adhering to procedural fairness is as vital as having valid reasons for termination in Kenyan employment law. Failure to do so can lead to a finding of unfair termination, regardless of the alleged misconduct.

 Full case available Here 

On distinguishing between fixed-term and indefinite employment contracts in redundancy and termination cases, and the necessity for employers to adhere to the provisions of the Employment Act and any applicable CBAs when conducting redundancies: The case of Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Kenya General Industries Limited [2025] KEELRC 1496 (KLR)

Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Judge: Justice K. Ocharo
Date: 22 May 2025
Case Number: Cause E074 of 2022
Outcome: Claim dismissed

Background:
The Kenya Engineering Workers Union (Claimant) filed a suit on behalf of several grievants, alleging unfair termination of employment by Kenya General Industries Limited (Respondent). The Claimant maintained that a recognition agreement and a negotiated Corrective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) were in place at all relevant times. The Respondent countered that the grievants were employed under individual fixed-term contracts, each of which expired without renewal, and thus their employment was not unfairly terminated.

Key Issues:

• Whether the grievants were employed under fixed-term contracts or indefinite contracts.
• Whether the Respondent complied with the provisions of Section 40 of the Employment Act and the terms of the CBA in the alleged redundancy process.

Court's Findings:
The Court found that the grievants were employed under individual fixed-term contracts that expired at different intervals. As such, their employment was not terminated unfairly but rather ended upon the expiration of their respective contracts. Consequently, the Court held that the Claimant's case lacked merit and dismissed the suit.

Legal Implications:
This judgment underscores the importance of distinguishing between fixed-term and indefinite employment contracts in redundancy and termination cases. It also highlights the necessity for employers to adhere to the provisions of the Employment Act and any applicable CBAs when conducting redundancies.

For further details, you can access the full judgment Here

 

Case Analysis on following legal procedures in tenancy disputes: The Case of Orchards Communications Limited v Suitable Hotels Limited (Tribunal Case E247 of 2023) [2024] KEBPRT 524 (KLR) (21 March 2024)

Case Overview

In this ruling, the Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT) addressed an application by Suitable Hotels Limited (the "Landlord") seeking orders for the attachment of Orchards Communications Limited's (the "Tenant") property due to unpaid rent arrears amounting to Kshs. 3,561,037. The Landlord also sought eviction of the Tenant following the attachment.

Tribunal's Findings

1. Non-Compliance with Statutory Termination Procedures

The Tribunal emphasized that under Section 4(2) of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels, and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301), a landlord wishing to terminate a controlled tenancy must issue a termination notice in the prescribed form. The Landlord failed to demonstrate compliance with this requirement, rendering the eviction application premature and legally untenable.

2. Rent Arrears and Payment Plan

The Tribunal acknowledged the Tenant's outstanding rent arrears of Kshs. 1,135,016.98. Considering the Tenant's financial situation, the Tribunal ordered that the arrears be cleared in three equal monthly installments, commencing in April 2024. Failure to adhere to this payment plan would grant the Landlord the liberty to levy distress for rent using a licensed auctioneer.

3. Costs of the Application

The Tribunal directed that the Tenant bear the costs of the application, reinforcing the principle that parties failing to meet their financial obligations may be held responsible for associated legal costs.

 

Legal Implications

• Statutory Compliance: The ruling underscores the necessity for landlords to adhere to statutory procedures when seeking to terminate a controlled tenancy.
• Payment Arrangements: The Tribunal's decision to allow a structured payment plan reflects a balanced approach, considering both the Tenant's obligations and financial capacity.
• Cost Allocation: The imposition of costs on the Tenant serves as a deterrent against non-payment and encourages adherence to legal obligations.

Conclusion

The Tribunal's ruling in this case highlights the importance of following legal procedures in tenancy disputes. While landlords are entitled to seek remedies for unpaid rent, they must ensure compliance with statutory requirements to avoid invalidation of their claims. Similarly, tenants are reminded of their obligations to meet rental payments promptly to avoid legal consequences.

 

Whether the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a declaratory suit arising from an insurance policy: The Case of Jubilee Allianz General Insurance Kenya Limited v Benson Muhavi Butiya

Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Case Number: Civil Appeal E613 of 2024
Judgment Date: 24 April 2025
Judge: Hon. J.N. Njagi

Parties:

• Appellant: Jubilee Allianz General Insurance Kenya Limited
• Respondent: Benson Muhavi Butiya

Background:
Benson Muhavi Butiya (the Respondent) filed a declaratory suit against Jubilee Allianz General Insurance Kenya Limited (the Appellant) in the Small Claims Court. The suit concerned a claim under an insurance policy issued by the Appellant. The Appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, arguing that it lacked the authority to determine a declaratory suit, particularly one related to insurance matters.

The appellant, Jubilee Allianz General Insurance Kenya Limited, appealed against a decision by the Small Claims Court in Milimani Civil Suit No. E741 of 2024. The suit involved a declaratory action concerning the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court over a matter related to an insurance policy.

Issues:
The central issue in this appeal was whether the Small Claims Court had the jurisdiction to hear and determine a declaratory suit concerning an insurance policy/ Whether the Small Claims Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine a declaratory suit involving an insurance contract.

Court’s Determination:
The High Court, presided over by Hon. J.N. Njagi, dismissed the appeal. The court upheld the decision of the Small Claims Court, affirming its jurisdiction to entertain the declaratory suit.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Small Claims Court had the requisite jurisdiction to hear the declaratory suit. The Court upheld the lower court’s decision and allowed the matter to proceed before the Small Claims Court.

Legal Significance:
This judgment reinforces the jurisdictional boundaries of the Small Claims Court in Kenya, particularly concerning declaratory actions related to insurance policies.

Rationale

• The court interpreted the Small Claims Court Act and applicable statutes, finding no limitation excluding declaratory actions from its jurisdiction.
• The court emphasized that access to justice and timely resolution of commercial disputes is essential, particularly where the claim value falls within the statutory threshold.

Citation:
Jubilee Allianz General Insurance Kenya Limited v Butiya [2025] KEHC 5170 (KLR) (Civ)

For a comprehensive understanding of the case, you can access the full judgment here: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/5170/eng@2025-04-24