Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 2079 of 2017· [2018] KEELRC 2392 (KLR)

David K. Songok & 2 others v Ernest N. Nadome & 4 others [2018] KEELRC 2392 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
22 February 2018
HWHellen Wasilwa
4,915 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~20 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court declined to reinstate suspended union officials, ruling they must first complete the union's own internal disciplinary and appeal processes.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimants, officials of the Kenya Electrical Trades and Allied Workers Union (National Chairman, Branch Secretary Nairobi Central, National Women Coordinator and related positions), moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court by Notice of Motion dated 17th October 2017 seeking mandatory injunctions to lift their suspension of 2nd September 2017, reinstatement to their positions, payment of withheld honoraria of Kshs 895,000, restoration of the 1st Claimant's trusteeship of the Kenya Power Pension Fund, injunctions restraining the procurement of TRV Towers Office Suites and continuation of disciplinary proceedings, and rectification of the Register of Officials. They argued that the meetings of 17th and 25th August 2017 were convened without the seven days' notice and quorum required by the Union Constitution, that the disciplinary resolutions of 2nd September 2017 were null and void, that the Registrar suspended them without a hearing, and that they were victimised for opposing an irregular single-sourced acquisition of TRV Towers. The Respondents, through affidavits of Kosgey Kolil and Registrar Elizabeth Gicheha, maintained that notices were issued, quorum was met, the disciplinary process complied with Articles 19 and 22 of the Union Constitution, and that the 1st Claimant himself approved the TRV Towers transaction. Justice Hellen Wasilwa held that under Article 4(4) of the Constitution unions enjoy autonomy over internal disciplinary mechanisms, which courts will not disturb unless flawed. Finding no demonstrated flaw and noting the Claimants' pending internal appeal, the court dismissed the application, directed exhaustion of internal disciplinary processes, and awarded costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should interfere with the Union's internal disciplinary process at the interlocutory stage

Holding

The court declined to intervene; the disciplinary process is ongoing and the Claimants' appeal to the National Executive Board remains unresolved

Reasoning

The court held that under Article 4(4) of the Constitution unions have the right to run their own internal disciplinary mechanisms. Courts interfere only where the process is flawed. The Claimants did not demonstrate any flaw in the process, which was still on course, with their appeal pending before the Board. Exhaustion of internal remedies was therefore required first.

p. 6
02

Whether the Claimants established a prima facie case justifying mandatory injunctions

Holding

The application was found to have no merit and was dismissed in its entirety

Reasoning

Despite the Claimants' assertions that the meetings of 17th and 25th August 2017 lacked proper notice and quorum and that the Board misapplied Articles 19.1 and 19.8 of the Union Constitution, the Respondents produced notices, attendance lists and evidence of quorum. The Claimants failed to demonstrate that the disciplinary process was flawed, so no basis existed for the extraordinary mandatory injunctions sought.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Trade unions and their members have a right to determine their own administrative programmes and internal disciplinary mechanisms, and courts will not interfere unless the process is flawed
  • An employee or union official must exhaust internal disciplinary processes before seeking redress from the Employment and Labour Relations Court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 17th October 2017 is dismissed
  2. 2.The Claimant Applicants are ordered to exhaust their internal disciplinary processes before seeking further redress from the Court
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 41; Article 4(4) (referred to as Article 4(4) of the Constitution)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court RulesRule 16
  • Labour Relations ActSections 4, 46, 47 and 49

Cases cited (3)

  • Professor Gitile Naituli vs University Council Multimedia University College and Another
    Industrial Cause No. 1200 of 2012
  • Alfred Njuguna Kimungui vs Bomas of Kenya
    Case No. 620/2013
  • Indris Aden Mukhatar & 2 Others vs County Government of Garissa and Another
    Petition No. 46 of 2015
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Rule 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules, Article 41 of the Constitution of Kenya and Sections 46, 47 and 49 of the Labour Relations Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "David K. Songok & 2 others v Ernest N. Nadome & 4 others [2018] KEELRC 2392 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No 2079 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2392/eng@2018-02-22

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.