Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutCause No 1397 of 2018· [2025] KEELRC 1107 (KLR)

Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Mehta Electricals Ltd (Cause 1397 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1107 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
4 April 2025
CBC. N. Baari
2,341 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan trade union lost its recognition case because it skipped the mandatory conciliation step before going to court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a trade union registered under the Labour Relations Act, 2007, sued the Respondent employer seeking an order compelling it to sign a recognition agreement under Sections 54(1) and 48(1) of the Act, alleging that the Respondent's refusal to recognise it and pressure on its members to resign from the union breached Article 36 of the Constitution. The Respondent opposed the claim on two fronts: that the 66 check-off signatures submitted were of doubtful authenticity, with some employees complaining their names had been improperly included, and that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the compulsory conciliation procedure under Section 54(6) and Part VIII of the Act had not been exhausted before the suit was lodged. The Court framed three issues: whether the claim was defended, whether it had jurisdiction, and whether the Claimant met the recognition threshold. It found the Respondent's response properly on record, having been filed with leave. On jurisdiction, it held that a recognition dispute must first be referred to conciliation before the ELRC may be moved, adopting a purposive reading of Section 54. The Claimant's letter to the Cabinet Secretary showed no receipt and the suit was filed barely a month after the dispute was reported. Holding the suit premature and in violation of the doctrine of exhaustion, the Court struck out the claim for want of jurisdiction and did not reach the recognition threshold question. Judgment was delivered by C. N. Baari, Judge, on 4th April 2025 at Nairobi.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent defended the suit

Holding

The Respondent's Memorandum of Response and documents were properly on record, having been filed with leave of the Court; the claim was defended.

Reasoning

The Court noted that the Respondent's Counsel had on 4th November 2024 sought and obtained leave to file documents, and that reciprocal leave to amend had been granted to both parties earlier. Consequently the response and documents were properly on record and the claim was treated as defended.

p. 4
02

Whether the Court has jurisdiction on account of exhaustion of alternative remedies

Holding

The Court lacked jurisdiction because the recognition dispute was not first referred to conciliation under Section 54(6) of the Labour Relations Act.

Reasoning

Section 54(6)-(8) requires a recognition dispute to be referred for conciliation under Part VIII, and only if unsettled, referred to the Industrial Court. The Claimant's letter reporting the dispute bore an amended date, showed no receipt by the Cabinet Secretary, and the suit was filed only a month after reporting. The requirement, though not in mandatory terms, was held to require conciliation first on a purposive reading.

p. 5
03

Whether the Claimant met the threshold for recognition

Holding

The question did not fall for determination once the Court found it lacked jurisdiction.

Reasoning

Having found the suit premature and struck out for want of jurisdiction, the Court did not consider the evidence on the simple majority claim, the disputed check-off signatures or the alleged resignations, holding the recognition question fell away.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A trade union seeking recognition must first subject the recognition dispute to conciliation under Section 54(6) of the Labour Relations Act before invoking the jurisdiction of the ELRC; a suit filed without doing so is premature and incompetent

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction, the Claimant having failed to exhaust the mandatory conciliation procedure under Section 54(6) of the Labour Relations Act

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 36
  • Labour Relations Act, 2007Sections 4, 48(1), 48(7) & (8), 54(1), 54(6), 54(7), 54(8), 62(1), 65, 74; Part VIII
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024Rule 29(1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Kenya Engineering Workers Union versus Empire Glass Industries Limited
    ELRCC E029 of 2022
  • Kenya Union of Non-Governmental Organizations, Employees & Human Rights Providers v. Chief Officer Department of Health Homabay & 2 Others
    (Cause E078 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 2386 (KLR)
  • Transport Workers Union v Etihad Airways
    [2019] KEELRC 2294 (KLR)
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    [1989] eKLR
  • County Government of Nyeri & Anor. v Cecilia Wangechi Ndungu
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 54, 62, 65 and 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007; Article 36 of the Constitution invoked by the Claimant

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Mehta Electricals Ltd (Cause 1397 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1107 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No 1397 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1107/eng@2025-04-04

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