https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1506

County Government Workers Union v Nakuru Water and Sanitation Company (Cause E068 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1506 (KLR) (4 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1506 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru Cause E068 of 2025 AN Mwaure, J June 4, 2026 Between County Government Workers Union Claimant and Nakuru Water and Sanitation Company Respondent Ruling 1.The Claimant/Applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 29th October 2025 under Certificate of urgency seeking the following orders that: 1.Spent 2.A temporary injunction do issue restraining and prohibiting the Respondent from intimidating, threatening or in any way victimizing the Claimant’s members pending the hearing and determination of this Application. 3.A temporary injunction do issue retraining the Respondent, their officers, staff, agents, servants, and/or any other persons acting at their behest, howsoever, from withholding any union dues deducted from the Claimant’s members pending the hearing and determination of this Application. 4.Status quo orders do issue that the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement dated 12th October, 2021, between the Claimant and the Respondent be maintained pending the hearing and determination of this Application. 5.A mandatory injunction do issue compelling the Respondent, their officers, staff, agents, servants, and/or any other persons acting at their behest howsoever to comply with the Terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement dated 12th October, 2021. 6.Costs of this Application be provided for. 2.The application is brought under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya), Order 51, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, sections 48, 50 and 59 of the Labour Relations Act, Rule 45 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016, Article 159(2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and all enabling provisions of the law. Claimant/Applicant’s supporting affidavit 3.The application is based on the grounds of the face of it and supported by the affidavit of the Claimant/Applicant’s General Secretary, Roba S. Duba, sworn even date as the application. 4.The Claimant/Applicant, a duly registered trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 2007, avers that despite being recognized by the Respondent through a Recognition Agreement dated 2nd December 2014, the Respondent has failed to comply with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) of 12th October 2021, duly registered in November 2021. 5.The Claimant/Applicant contends that while the first phase of salary increments was implemented, the Respondent only partially effected the second phase and failed to implement the third, thereby breaching Section 59 of the Labour Relations Act. 6.The Claimant further avers victimization, harassment, and coercion of its members, including physical assault on union officials, and the Respondent’s unlawful derecognition of the union through a letter dated 17th September 2025, supported by defective and forged resignation letters. 7.The Claimant/Applicant avers that the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nakuru, consolidated Petitions E013, E014, and E015 of 2024, dismissed the Respondent’s challenge and upheld the union’s recognition, with Justice Rika affirming that the union had secured a simple majority. 8.The Claimant/Applicant emphasizes that the Respondent’s continued refusal to remit union dues amounting to Kshs. 7,000,000/=, and its deliberate non‑compliance with the CBA undermines Article 41 of the Constitution and section 54 of the Labour Relations Act. 9.The Claimant/Applicant therefore urges the court to treat the matter as urgent to safeguard the rights and interests of its members. Respondent’s replying affidavit 10.In opposition to the application, the Respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn by James Ng’anga Gachathi, the Respondent Managing Director, dated 18th December 2025. 11.The Respondent avers that it contests the validity of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) dated 12th October 2021, noting that it was to last for 36 months and expired in July 2024. 12.The Respondent emphasizes that the Respondent is a licensed water service provider under the Water Act, 2016, regulated by WASREB, and therefore its employees fall within the category of water company employees addressed in binding precedents. He relies on National Union of Water and Sewerage Employees & 3 Others v Nairobi Water and Sewerage Employees Limited [2018] eKLR and Kenya County Government Workers Union v Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company Limited & Another (ELRC CBA No. 34 of 2020), which held that the Claimant union lacked capacity to represent such employees. 13.The Respondent avers that only the first-year increment of Kshs.8,000/= was implemented, while subsequent increments were conditional on billing targets that were not met. Instead, in 2023, it granted a Kshs.6,000/= adjustment to all employees under Section 7.1.2 of its Human Resource and Administration Policy and Procedures Manual, purely to cushion against inflation, and this was not partial compliance with the CBA. 14.The Respondent further avers the Claimant’s threats of industrial action, the Respondent’s move to court to protect essential water and sewerage services, and the pending appeal before the Court of Appeal (Appeal No. E080/2025) should be considered. 15.Finally, the Respondent avers it has derecognized the Claimant union, revoked the recognition agreement, and most employees have since joined the Water Services Workers Union, urging the court to strike out the Claimant’s application and claim with costs. 16.Parties canvassed the application by way of written submissions. Claimant/Applicant’s submissions 17.The Claimant/Applicant cited Rule 48 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court(Procedure) Rules, which provides that a party may oppose a motion through grounds of opposition, a replying affidavit, or a preliminary objection. However, as emphasized in Gideon Sitelu Konchellah v Julius Lekakeny Ole Sunkuli & 2 Others [2018] KESC 58 (KLR), the court must still be satisfied that an unopposed application is prima facie meritorious before granting relief. In interlocutory injunctions, the principles in Nguruman Limited v Nielsen & 2 others [2014] KECA 606 (KLR), as reiterated in Lucy Wangui Gachara v Minudi Okemba Lore [2015] KECA 277 (KLR), require the applicant to establish a prima facie case, demonstrate irreparable injury, and show that the balance of convenience tilts in their favour. A prima facie case, as defined in Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others [2003] KECA 175 (KLR), is one where the material presented discloses an apparent infringement of rights warranting rebuttal. 18.The Claimant submitted that it has demonstrated such a case by showing that the Respondent failed to comply with the Collective Bargaining Agreement dated 12th October 2021, contrary to sections 49(1) and 59(1) of the Labour Relations Act, by neglecting to deduct and remit union dues and failing to implement agreed wage increments. In Kenya Union of Nurses v Murang’a County Public Service Board & another [2021] KEELRC 1115 (KLR), the court condemned non-deduction of union dues as a perverted labour relations practice that undermines union activity. 19.On irreparable injury, the principles in Paul Gitonga Wanjau v Gathuthi Tea Factory Company Ltd [2016] KEHC 7263 (KLR) and Halsbury’s Laws of England affirm that where damages cannot adequately vindicate rights, injunctive relief is warranted. The Claimant/Applicant has shown that continued disobedience of the CBA and Recognition Agreement of 2nd December 2014, coupled with the Respondent’s delaying tactics through Nakuru ELRCPETs E013, E014 and E015 of 2024, will occasion irreparable harm. 20.Finally, applying the reasoning in Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai [2018] KEELC 2424 (KLR), the balance of convenience favours the Claimant/Applicant, since withholding the injunction would cause greater prejudice to union members than any inconvenience to the Respondent. 21.Accordingly, the Court should find that the Claimant/Applicant has satisfied the triple test for the grant of interlocutory injunctions, and the Application dated 29th October 2025 is merited. The Respondent’s Application dated 18th December 2025 is dismissed with costs. Respondent’s submissions 22.The Respondent submitted that the CBA dated 12th October 2021 was negotiated and executed per incuriam, as the Claimant union lacked legal capacity to represent employees of water service providers. Reliance is placed on Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2013, National Union of Water and Sewerage Employees & 3 Others v Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company Limited [2018] eKLR, and Kenya County Government Workers Union v Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company Ltd & Another, CBA No. 34 of 2020, which held that the Claimant union is not the proper representative of water sector employees. The Respondent further invoked the Water Act, 2016 and the regulatory mandate of WASREB to show that its employees fall within the category excluded from the Claimant’s representation. 23.On the test for interlocutory injunctions, the Respondent relied on the cases of Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd (1973) EA 358 and Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others(supra), submitting that no prima facie case exists since the CBA is a nullity. The Respondent submitted that irreparable injury has not been demonstrated, relying on Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai(supra), as most employees have resigned from the Claimant/Applicant union in favour of the Water Services Workers Union. 24.On balance of convenience, the Respondent submitted that disruption of essential water services would prejudice the public, citing Rockland Kenya Limited v Elliot White Miller [1994] KECA 84 (KLR) in support of that proposition. Regarding the status quo, the Respondent relied on Esso Kenya Ltd v Okiya [1992] KECA 53 (KLR), noting that the 2021 CBA expired in July 2024 and cannot be enforced. The Respondent also relied on the cases of Teachers Service Commission & 2 Others v KNUT & 8 Others [2015] KECA 239 (KLR) and Kenya County Government Workers Union v Embu Water and Sewerage Company Ltd [2021] KEELRC 1096 (KLR) to stress that SRC advice under Article 230(4)(b) of the Constitution is mandatory before any CBA involving public officers. 25.Finally, on mandatory injunctions, the Respondent relied on the cases of Maher Unissa Karim v Edward Oluoch Odumbe [2015] KEHC 4029 (KLR) and Kenya Breweries Ltd v Washington Okeyo (2002) EA 109, submitting that the threshold is higher and not met, as the CBA is contested and no special circumstances exist. 26.The Respondent urged the dismissal of the Claimant/Applicant’s application with costs, contending that it is founded on an illegal and expired CBA, contrary to binding precedent and constitutional requirements. Analysis and determination 27.The court has considered the application, supporting affidavit, replying affidavit, and the submissions on record; the issue for determination is whether the application is meritorious. 28.The court will rely on the classic case of Giellla V Cassman Brown & Company Limited(supra), which gives the conditions to grant an injunction as follows:“Firstly, an Applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success. Secondly, an interlocutory injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury, which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages. Thirdly, if the court is in doubt, it will decide an application on the balance of convenience.” 29.In Lucy Wangui Gachara v Minudi Okemba Lore(Supra), where the Court of Appeal cited the case of Nguruman Limited v Nielsen & 2 others(supra) as follows:“In an interlocutory injunction application, the applicant has to satisfy the triple requirements to;(a)establish his case only at a prima facie level,(b)demonstrate irreparable injury if a temporary injunction is not granted, and(c)ally any doubts as to (b) by showing that the balance of convenience is in his favour.These are the three pillars on which rests the foundation of any order of injunction, interlocutory or permanent. It is established that all the above three conditions and stages are to be applied as separate, distinct and logical hurdles which the applicant is expected to surmount sequentially. See Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd V. Afraha Education Society [2001] Vol. 1 EA 86. If the applicant establishes a prima facie case that alone is not sufficient basis to grant an interlocutory injunction, the court must further be satisfied that the injury the respondent will suffer, in the event the injunction is not granted, will be irreparable. In other words, if damages recoverable in law is an adequate remedy and the respondent is capable of paying, no interlocutory order of injunction should normally be granted, however strong the applicant’s claim may appear at that stage. If prima facie case is not established, then irreparable injury and balance of convenience need no consideration. The existence of a prima facie case does not permit “leap-frogging” by the applicant to injunction directly without crossing the other hurdles in between.” (Emphasis added). 30.In this instant case, the Claimant asserts that despite recognition through the 2014 Recognition Agreement, the Respondent failed to comply with the CBA of 12th October 2021, registered in November 2021, by only partially implementing salary increments, thereby breaching section 59 of the Labour Relations Act, and further engaged in victimization, harassment, and unlawful derecognition of the union, contrary to Article 41 of the Constitution and section 54 of the Labour Relations Act. The Respondent, however, contests the validity of the CBA, arguing that its 36‑month term expired in July 2024, and relies on National Union of Water and Sewerage Employees & 3 Others v Nairobi Water and Sewerage Employees Limited [2018] eKLR and Kenya County Government Workers Union v Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company Limited & Another (ELRC CBA No. 34 of 2020) to submit that the Claimant union lacked capacity to represent water company employees under the Water Act, 2016. It maintains that only the first‑year increment was implemented; later adjustments were inflationary cushioning under its Human Resouce Manual; and cites threats of industrial action and the pending Court of Appeal Appeal No. E080 of 2025, and derecognition of the union, with most employees joining the Water Services Workers Union, urging dismissal of the Claimant’s application. 31.The collective bargaining agreement dated 1st July 2021 was signed by the respective parties including the Union members and the Employer as well as a representative of the Federation of Kenya Employers. The court was informed that the same was registered in court in October 2021. It was to be valid for 36 months or until another agreement mutually agreed between the parties would be registered. 32.Todate, no such further mutually agreed agreement is presented to court as far as the court records confirm. The court in the absence of any such an agreement would then hold that the agreement of 2021 is still in place and should be complied with. Section 48 of the Labour Relations Act mandates an employer with more than five union members to deduct uinion dues from members’ wages and remit the deducted amounts to the union is designated accounts. 33.The courts in Kenya have repeatedly held that once the union has complied with Section 48 of the Labour Relations Act Kenya by serving the employer with the required check off- forms and ministerial orders, the employer has a statutory duty to deduct and remit union dues. 34.The employer must have been served with the necessary documents and in the first year they complied.The court is persuaded by numerous case laws among them, Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union -vs- James Finlay 2013 eKLR and Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels Educational Institutions, Hospitals and Allied Workers(Kudheiha) -vs Kenyatta National Hospital (2018) eKLR where court held that the terms of a negotiated and registered CBA are binding and enforeable and an employer cannot unilaterally refuse to impleent agreed provisions. 35.The Court is satisfied that the Claimant/Applicant has met the conditions set out in Giella v Cassman Brown & Company Limited(supra) and Nguruman Limited v Nielsen & 2 Others(Supra), being the provision of granting of Conservatory Orders as already discussed herein before. The Claimant has demonstrated a prima facie case, established the likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunctive relief, and shown that the balance of convenience lies in its favour. There is still a valid CBA and the Respondent must adhere to the same.Further, in ELRC Petition E013, E014 and E015 the court ruled that the CBA had to be complied with. The Respondents appeal COACA 080/2025 is yet to be decided. In the meantime, the Respondent has no choice but to adhere to the CBA which the ocurt finds is still valid. 36.In light of the foregoing, the court allows the Claimant/Applicant’s application dated 29th October 2025 on the following conditions: 1.THAT An injunction do issue restraining and prohibiting the Respondent from intimidating, threatening or in any way victimizing the Claimant’s members. 2.THAT An injunction do isssue restraining the Respondent, their officers, staff, agents, servants, and/or any othr person acting at their behest howsoever from withholding any union dues deducted from the Claimant’s members. 3.THAT status quo orders do issue that the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement dated 12th October 2021 between the Claimant and the Respondent be maintaned. 4.THAT a mandatory injunction do issue compelling the Respondent, their officers, staff agents, servants and/or any other persons acting at their behest howsoever to comply with the Terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement dated 12th October, 2021. 37.The court in exercise of its inherent discretion mandates each party to meet their respective costs. Orders accordingly. Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually at Nakuru this 4th Day of June, 2026.ANNA NGIBUINI MWAUREJUDGE