SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Kenya Game Hunting And Safaris Union v Lewa Wildlife Conservancy [2016] KEELRC 1492 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 1492 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1492
Citation
[2016] KEELRC 1492 (KLR)
Decided
24 March 2016
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeLabour Relations DisputePostureAppeal from a previous decisionCoramBYRAM ONGAYA
The court finds in favor of the claimant, declaring that the claimant is entitled to the respondent to deduct union dues in accordance with the law with respect to the 31 respondent's employees who have signed acknowledging to be members of the union.

Facts

The claimant union filed a suit against the respondent wildlife conservancy for failing to deduct and remit union dues for 31 employees who have signed authorization for the deduction. The employees are designated as various roles in the wildlife field.

Issues

  • Whether the suit is res judicata due to a previous court decision
  • Whether the claimant is entitled to the deduction and payment of union dues with respect to the 31 employees

Reasoning

The court considers that the employees have signed confirming their membership of the union and that the claimant has satisfied the legal requirements. The court also notes that the respondent has not provided evidence to exclude the employees from union activities.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the claimant

Orders

  • The respondent to deduct and deliver the union dues from the 31 employees effective end of May 2016
  • The respondent to pay costs of the suit

Remedies

  • Declaration of entitlement to union dues
  • Deduction and delivery of union dues

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Labour Relations Act, 2007
  • Employment Act, 2007
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case