Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 1528 (KLR)

Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union v Finlay Brushware Ltd (Cause E809 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1528 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 May 2025
542 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Kenya Shoe & Leather Workers Union sued Finlay Brushware Ltd on 26 September 2024, complaining of the company's refusal to sign a recognition agreement and to deduct and remit union dues. Following the Court's encouragement, the parties settled the union dues issue out of court, leaving only the recognition agreement for determination. At the hearing on 11 March 2025, the Union opted not to lead any evidence; the Respondent's Human Resources Manager testified, and both parties filed written submissions. The Court disregarded evidentiary documents attached to the Union's submissions, holding that submissions cannot be used to introduce evidence. On the recognition claim, section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act sets a simple majority threshold for recognition. The Union's filings disclosed inconsistent figures: the Statement of Claim was silent on numbers; a Conciliator's report dated 1 August 2024 (not produced on oath) indicated 78 of 100 unionisable employees recruited; and a supporting affidavit sworn 25 September 2024 deponed to 144 of 250. The Union called no witness to produce the report or explain the discrepancy. The Court held that the Union failed to establish its case to the required standard, and dismissed the Cause on 22 May 2025. In light of the social partnership between the parties, no order on costs was made. The Court urged the Respondent to cooperate with the Union as it seeks to organise, noting that industrial peace depends on capital and labour working together.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Union met the simple majority threshold for recognition under section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act

Holding

The Union failed to establish the threshold; the records disclosed inconsistent figures (78 of 100, or 144 of 250 unionisable employees) and no witness was called to produce the Conciliator's report or explain the discrepancy

Reasoning

Section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act requires a simple majority of unionisable employees before an employer must recognise a union. The Union did not disclose in its Statement of Claim the numbers recruited or the total unionisable employees, and its own filings contained conflicting totals. Without evidence produced on oath establishing the majority, the claim fails on the pleadings alone, even before considering the Respondent's testimony.

p. 2
02

Evidentiary status of documents attached to submissions

Holding

The Court disregarded the evidentiary documents attached to the Union's submissions because evidence cannot be introduced through submissions

Reasoning

The Court stated that submissions serve only as legal argument, not as a vehicle for evidence. A document becomes evidence only after production on oath by a witness or through an affidavit. The Union having opted not to lead any evidence, the Conciliator's report attached to its submissions could not be relied upon to prove the recruitment figures.

p. 1
03

Deduction and remittance of union dues

Holding

This issue was settled out of court and did not fall for determination

Reasoning

Following the Court's encouragement at a pre-trial stage, the parties settled the question of deduction and remittance of union dues, leaving only the recognition agreement question for the Court's determination.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A trade union seeking recognition must meet the simple majority threshold set by section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act, and must prove that threshold through evidence produced on oath
  • A document becomes evidence only when produced on oath by a witness or through an affidavit; submissions cannot be used to introduce evidence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Cause is dismissed
  2. 2.No order on costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over a trade dispute stated as an Issue in Dispute (recognition agreement and deduction/remittance of union dues)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union v Finlay Brushware Ltd (Cause E809 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1528 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1528/eng@2025-05-22

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