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

Universities Academic Staff Union Egerton Chapter/Branch v Egerton University & 2 others; Board of Trustees, Egerton University Retirement Benefits Scheme & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Cause E020 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2927 (KLR) (16 November 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEELRC 2927 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
2927
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 2927 (KLR)
Decided
16 November 2023
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

TypeLabor DisputePostureAppeal from an earlier decisionCoramDN NDERITU, SC, See Mativo, Wasilwa
The court ruled that the Hon. Justice D.N. Nderitu should be disqualified from hearing the case.

Facts

The claimant, the Universities Academic Staff Union Egerton Chapter/Branch, filed a claim against Egerton University and its Board of Trustees for unpaid pension contributions totaling approximately 1,343,644,512 Kenyan Shillings. The claimant alleged that the university was unable to pay its academic and non-academic staff due to financial challenges.

Issues

  • Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) has the authority to recuse itself from hearing the case.
  • Whether the court demonstrated actual bias in previous cases involving the same parties.

Reasoning

The court found that the Hon. Justice Nderitu had a pre-determined mind due to previous cases involving the same parties and the financial challenges faced by the university.

Outcome

The court ruled in favor of the claimant and ordered the recusal of Hon. Justice D.N. Nderitu.

Orders

  • Hon. Justice D.N. Nderitu be pleased to disqualify or recuse himself from hearing and determining this matter.
⚠ 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 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case