Dr Anbar Ganatra says the doctors’ union withheld her dues after relocating to Australia, allegedly insisting she return to Kenya. KMPDU disputes her employment status, setting up a courtroom battle over unpaid remuneration and alleged racial discrimination.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court has cleared the way for a former doctors’ union official to pursue a contentious payment dispute.
Justice Bernard Manani dismissed a preliminary objection by the Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists and Dentists Union (KMPDU).
The union and its official, Davji Atella, had challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.
At the centre is Dr Anbar Ganatra’s claim for outstanding remuneration under an alleged KSh 300,000 monthly agreement.
The former National Deputy Treasurer says the union withheld her payments after relocating to Australia.
She also accuses KMPDU of discrimination, alleging that her treatment was racially motivated.
In a ruling delivered on October 29, 2026, Justice Manani allowed the substantive case to proceed.
The decision, however, does not establish whether Ganatra was employed or owed the disputed payments.
Nor does it determine whether the union discriminated against her.
Payment Dispute
Ganatra told the court that members elected her as National Deputy Treasurer in May 2021.
She maintained that KMPDU agreed to pay her KSh 300,000 monthly for performing the role.
However, she alleged that payments were irregular, leaving outstanding dues during her tenure.
The dispute intensified after she relocated to Australia in 2023.
Ganatra maintained that moving abroad did not end her responsibilities within the union.
Before leaving Kenya, she allegedly requested KMPDU to settle her outstanding payments.
She claimed the union declined, instead insisting she return to Kenya before receiving payment.
Ganatra considered that position unreasonable and discriminatory, particularly given her continued service.
She subsequently accused the union of violating her constitutional rights.
These included equality, human dignity, freedom from discrimination and fair labour practices.
KMPDU offered a sharply different account of their relationship.
The union denied employing Ganatra, insisting she served voluntarily without entitlement to remuneration.
It further argued that she stopped performing her responsibilities after relocating overseas.
According to the respondents, she had effectively stepped down from her leadership position.
Union’s Objection
Rather than immediately contesting the alleged payments, KMPDU challenged the court’s jurisdiction.
The union argued that Ganatra had bypassed its internal dispute resolution procedures.
It specifically relied on Article VIII (B) of its constitution.
The provision establishes a Standing Committee to handle disputes involving union members.
KMPDU maintained that Ganatra should first have presented her grievances before that committee.
Justice Manani, however, found that Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act covered the dispute.
The provision grants the court jurisdiction over disputes between trade unions and members.
Both parties acknowledged that KMPDU was registered and that Ganatra belonged to the organisation.
The judge therefore concluded that the dispute fell within the court’s statutory jurisdiction.
He nevertheless considered whether internal procedures should precede judicial intervention.
Examining Rule 56(5) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules, 2024, proved important.
Justice Manani explained that alternative dispute resolution does not extinguish judicial jurisdiction.
Instead, it may postpone when a court can exercise that jurisdiction.
He observed that proceedings could be stayed rather than struck out where exhaustion applies.
Constitutional Battle
Ganatra argued that her constitutional grievances placed the dispute beyond the union’s internal committee.
Justice Manani found support for this position in Supreme Court precedent.
He relied on Bia Tosha Distributors Limited v Kenya Breweries Limited & 6 Others, Petition No. 15 of 2020.
The Supreme Court had considered whether arbitrators could determine alleged constitutional violations.
It held that constitutional breaches fall outside arbitrators’ jurisdiction.
The court explained that arbitrators derive their authority principally from agreements between parties.
However, disputes extending into constitutional questions may properly proceed before courts.
Justice Manani applied that reasoning to Ganatra’s allegations against KMPDU.
He examined her Statement of Claim and identified allegations concerning discrimination, equality and dignity.
The judge also noted her complaints about violations of fair labour practices.
Importantly, he clarified that constitutional allegations need not ultimately succeed.
Their success would depend on evidence presented during the substantive proceedings.
As the Supreme Court had cautioned, raising constitutional violations does not guarantee victory.
This distinction allowed Ganatra’s case to proceed without prejudging the respondents’ defence.
What Comes Next
Having considered the competing arguments, Justice Manani dismissed the preliminary objection.
He ruled that the dispute was unsuitable for determination through KMPDU’s internal mechanism.
The judge directed that the substantive case would proceed before the court.
He further ordered that costs of the objection would abide the outcome.
The decision leaves several important questions awaiting determination.
The court must establish whether Ganatra was an employee or a voluntary union official.
It must also determine whether the alleged KSh 300,000 monthly remuneration agreement existed.
Evidence will further establish whether she continued performing her responsibilities after relocating.
The discrimination allegations will require separate examination against constitutional protections.
KMPDU’s position that Ganatra stepped down will also require evidential support.
The ruling does not establish the amount, if any, that remains unpaid.
READ ALSO: Court Restrains Sonko Over Claims Miguna Miguna Stole TVs and Suffered Machete Injury
Neither does it make any finding of liability against Atella or KMPDU.
Instead, it removes the procedural obstacle that had threatened to derail Ganatra’s claim.
For the former union official, the immediate victory is significant but incomplete.
The substantive proceedings will put KMPDU’s volunteer argument and account to the test.
Ultimately, the court must determine whether the union breached its obligations to Ganatra.
The October ruling has paved the way for the courtroom proceedings. The real battle now begins.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
