Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELRC 381 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Commercial, Food & Allied Workers v Murang’a West Water & Sanitation Company Limited; Kenya County Government Workers Union (Intended Interested Party) (Cause E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 381 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 February 2025
OMONESMUS N MAKAU
1,616 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court allowed a union to join a recognition dispute because it now represents most of the workers whose terms are at stake.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by Onesmus N Makau, Judge, Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri, determines a Notice of Motion dated 3rd July 2024 by the Kenya County Government Workers Union seeking joinder as an interested party in a suit in which the Claimant union seeks to compel the Respondent water company to conclude a CBA for 2023/2025 after the previous agreement expired in July 2023. The applicant contended that there had been mass withdrawal of membership from the Claimant, that it now commands the simple majority of the Respondent's unionisable employees, that the Respondent had been remitting dues of the defecting members to it, and that the Respondent had written to the National Labour Board seeking revocation of the recognition agreement with the Claimant. The Claimant opposed, relying on section 54(6) of the Labour Relations Act on disputes over recognition and arguing that the applicant lacked a recognition agreement and should pursue its own dispute under section 62 of the LRA. The court framed a single issue: whether the applicant met the threshold for joinder under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Applying section 54(1) and (2) of the LRA, and noting payroll evidence showing the applicant had 34 members against the Claimant's 11, the court held the applicant to be a necessary party since it holds the legal mandate of the majority of the unionisable staff. The application was allowed as prayed, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant union qualifies as a necessary party for joinder under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

The application for joinder was allowed; the applicant is a necessary party because it now commands the simple majority of the respondent's unionisable employees under section 54(1) and (2) of the Labour Relations Act and the suit cannot be effectively resolved without it.

Reasoning

The court reviewed section 54 of the LRA, which obliges an employer to recognise only a union representing a simple majority of unionisable employees. Payroll evidence (RSD-4) showed the applicant had 34 members against the claimant's 11, and the respondent had written to the National Labour Board seeking revocation of the claimant's recognition agreement (RSD-5). Given the mass defections, the applicant holds the legal mandate to negotiate terms of service and its absence would prevent effective resolution of the dispute.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A party is only to be joined in a suit if such joinder is necessary to enable the court to effectively determine the suit (Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPR).
  • An employer has no obligation to engage a trade union for collective bargaining unless that union represents a simple majority of unionisable employees (section 54(1) LRA).

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Kenya County Government Workers Union joined as an interested party in the suit to enable it to file a substantive response to and submissions on the Claimant's suit
  2. 2.Costs in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3 and 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 17 of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2016; Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Article 159(2) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial, Food & Allied Workers v Murang’a West Water & Sanitation Company Limited; Kenya County Government Workers Union (Intended Interested Party) (Cause E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 381 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/381/eng@2025-02-14

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