Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (Claim by Memorandum of Claim dated 1st October 2020)· [2025] KEELRC 1482 (KLR)

Kenya Shipping Clearing Freight Logistics and Warehouses Workers Union v Vegro (K) Limited; Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 145 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1482 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 May 2025
3,881 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed unions can sue for workers without a recognition agreement, but only the Kshs.1,000 medical fee refund was proven and awarded.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant union, registered to represent workers in shipping, clearing and forwarding and freight logistics, sued Vegpro (K) Ltd (trading as VP Group) claiming redundancy pay for about 1000 employees following the change of trademark from VEGPRO (K) Ltd to VP Group and the re-serialization of payroll numbers; payment to 60 employees for two days worked on 25th and 26th October 2017; refund of Kshs.1000 per employee paid for medical check-ups in 2017; election of trustees to the Kennendia Insurance provident scheme; and deposit of 5 million shillings allegedly missing from the scheme. The Respondent and the Interested Party opposed, contending the Claimant had no recognition agreement (Sections 54 and 56, Labour Relations Act) and could not represent the employees, that the trademark change was mere rebranding with no effect on employment, and that no evidence supported the claims. CW1 Monica Ndunge conceded there was no proof of union membership, no list of aggrieved employees, and no authority letter. The court, per Wasilwa J, held that Article 41(2) of the Constitution entitles every worker to join a union of their choice, so the absence of a recognition agreement did not bar the Claimant's claim. However, no redundancy was proven, no evidence supported the October 2017 payment claim or the 5 million shillings allegation. Only the refund of the Kshs.1000 medical check-up fee, which the Respondent did not deny, was granted. There shall be no order of costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a trade union without a recognition agreement can represent employees before the court

Holding

Yes. The right to join a union of one's choice is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 41(2); absence of a recognition agreement does not bar representation.

Reasoning

The court invoked Article 41(2) of the Constitution guaranteeing every worker the right to form, join or participate in the activities of a trade union. Because the employees chose the Claimant union, the lack of a recognition agreement with the Respondent was irrelevant to the union's capacity to file and prosecute the claim on their behalf. The objection by the Respondent and Interested Party founded on Sections 54 and 56 of the Labour Relations Act was rejected as a fallacy.

p. 8
02

Whether the change of trademark from VEGPRO (K) Ltd to VP Group and re-serialization of payroll numbers amounted to a redundancy

Holding

No redundancy was proven; no evidence was placed before the court that any employees were declared redundant.

Reasoning

The Respondent maintained that VP Group is only a brand name and that the registration exercise was a payroll transition with no effect on employment contracts. CW1 conceded there was no evidence of membership, no list of the allegedly redundant employees was placed in court, and no employee came forward. The court held the Respondent to its word that employee numbers would not change so as to affect employment status.

p. 8
03

Whether the Kshs.1000 per employee paid for medical check-up is refundable

Holding

Yes, the Respondent having not denied the payment, the amount is refundable.

Reasoning

CW1 testified that all employees paid Kshs.1000 for medical check-up and were not issued receipts, signing only with the company nurse. The Respondent denied the allegation in its pleadings, but the court found the payment was not denied in the sense required and ordered the refund.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • Every worker has a constitutional right to form, join or participate in the activities of a trade union of their choice, and a union may represent its members even without a recognition agreement with the employer

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent to refund the Kshs.1000 per employee paid for medical check-up, the Respondent having not denied the payment
  2. 2.There shall be no order of costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Act (not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Shipping Clearing Freight Logistics and Warehouses Workers Union v Vegro (K) Limited; Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 145 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 1482 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Claim by Memorandum of Claim dated 1st October 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1482/eng@2025-05-22

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