135/94 : Kenya Human Rights Commission / Kenya
The Facts
1. The university academic staff from the four public universities in Kenya (University of Nairobi,
Kenyatta University, Moi University and Egerton University) met and resolved to form an umbrella
trade union to represent their interests in negotiations with their respective employers. They decided to
call their union, the Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU).
th
2. On 25 May 1992, they submitted an application for registration to the Registrar of Trade Unions.
The Registrar acknowledged the receipt of the application documents the same day. However, there
were no further replies from either the Registrar General, or the Attorney General.
3. In June 1993, the UASU interim officials wrote to the Attorney General seeking audience with him
to discuss UASU’s registration. The Attorney General did not reply to this letter.
th
4. Due to the lack of response, the UASU decided in November 1993 to go on strike 29 November
1993. The notice of the intended strike was issued to the Attorney General, the Registrar and the ViceChancellors of the public universities. A copy of notice was also delivered to Kenya’s President Daniel
Moi, who is also the Chancellor of all the public universities.
th
5. On 24 November 1993 the Registrar refused to register UASU on the grounds that “the union is
used for unlawful purposes and as such peace, welfare and good order in Kenya would otherwise be
likely to suffer prejudice...”
th
rd
6. The strike began on 29 November 1993 and court proceedings initiated on 23 December 1993,
challenging the Registrar’s decision to reject their application for registration as a trade union.
th
7. On 27 December 1993, during the swearing-in of two newly appointed judges of the High Court of
Kenya President Moi, who is also the Chancellor of the public universities, stated that the government
would never register UASU despite the fact that the matter was already in court. He reiterated the
government’s position on 31st December in a public statement. He again repeated that the
th
government would not allow the registration of UASU on 25 February 1994 and further stated that the
government would take stern action against the leaders of the UASU.
th
8. Justice A.B. Shah, one of the new judges sworn in on 27 December 1993, and who was
previously the President’s lawyer, heard an application filed by University of Nairobi UASU chapter
officials seeking to restrain eviction from their university housing until the cases against the Registrar
challenging the rejection of registration, and their purported dismissal from the university were fully
determined. Justice A.B. Shah rejected the application.
9. All the national officials of UASU have been arrested and harassed since the strike begun in
th
November 1993. On 10 December 1993, the national interim officials were arrested while proceeding
to Egerton University for a meeting. No charges were pressed and the officials were released the
th
following day. Dr Korwa Adar was again arrested on 25 February 1994 from his house after the
President warned that action will be taken against UASU leaders. Dr Adar was charged with inciting
students and colleagues to violence.
Procedure
th
nd
10. The communication is dated 8 March 1994 and was received by the Commission on 2 May
1994.
th
11. The Commission was seized of the communication at its 16 Session in October 1994 and it was
decided that the Government of Kenya should be notified of the complaint against it for comments.
th
12. On 10 January 1995, a letter was sent to the Complainant asking what had been the outcome of
the court case respecting the refusal of the Government to register the union in question. On the same
date a notification was sent to the Government informing it of the seizure of the communication during
th
the 16 Session and that the admissibility of the communication would be considered at the
th
17 Session.
th
rd
13. At the 17 Session the 3 month period given to the Government of Kenya to respond to the
th
communication had not yet elapsed. The case was therefore deferred to the 18 Session.
th
14. On the 20 April 1995, letters were sent to both the Complainant and the Government of Kenya,
th
stating that the case would be considered at the 18 Session and requesting the Government of
Kenya’s response to the communication and information from the Complainant on the pending court
case.
Law
15. Article 56 of the African Charter reads:
Communications ... shall be considered if they: ... (5) Are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any,
unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged...
16. The most recent information the Commission has, provided by the Complainants themselves,
states that the communication is still pending before the courts of Kenya. The Complainant has
therefore not exhausted all available local remedies.
Holding
For the above reasons, the Commission Declares the communication inadmissible without making
any judgements as to the merits.
th
18 Session, Praia, Cape Verde, October 1995.