Mihadi & 2 others v Otieno & another (Cause E036 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2021 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court struck out a judicial review challenge to a Registrar of Trade Unions decision, confirming that appeals—not judicial review—are the correct route.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the ex-parte order issued on 16/6/2025 should be vacated or set aside
- 2.Whether the ex-parte applicants were guilty of material non-disclosure in obtaining the order
- 3.Whether the judicial review application, as against a decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions, is properly before the court
Key legal issues
#Proper remedy against a decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions
Judicial review was an irregular route; the proper course is an appeal under section 30 of the Labour Relations Act, and the judicial review application was struck out
Section 30 of the Labour Relations Act provides that any person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar may appeal to the Industrial Court within thirty days. The court held that where a decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions is contested, the aggrieved party must come by way of appeal. The ex-parte applicants instead approached the court by judicial review, which the court found to be an irregularity going to the whole application, warranting striking out with all consequential orders, including the ex-parte stay order.
Alleged material non-disclosure in obtaining the ex-parte order
The court did not decide the merits of the non-disclosure allegations, as the application fell with the striking out of the judicial review proceedings
The respondents alleged the ex-parte order of 16/6/2025 was obtained through material non-disclosure, including failure to disclose Central Council meetings of 22nd May and 12th June 2025 at which office bearers were removed and new officials elected. The court expressly declined to consider the validity of the change of office bearers, holding it need not go into that question in view of the jurisdictional defect it had identified, and struck out the entire application instead.
Legal principles established
#- Where there is contention on any order granted by the Registrar of Trade Unions, the aggrieved party must approach the Industrial Court (ELRC) by way of appeal, not judicial review
Court orders
#- 1.The judicial review application is struck out with all consequential orders therein
- 2.No order of costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act; section 30 of the Labour Relations Act 2007
Relief refused
#Vacation/setting aside of the ex-parte order of 16/6/2025 as sought by notice of motion dated 17/6/25
The court instead struck out the entire judicial review application as irregular, the proper route against a Registrar of Trade Unions decision being an appeal
Costs
There will be no order of costs - each party to bear own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The law is clear that where there is contention on any order granted by the registrar of trade union the aggrieved party should approach this court by way of an appeal. The ex-parte applicants however chose to approach this court by way of judicial review application which is an irregularity.
In view of this position, I find that the judicial review application as a whole is irregularly before me and I proceed to strike it out with all consequential orders therein. There will be no order of costs.
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar made under this Act may appeal to the Industrial Court against that decision within thirty days of the decision.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently refers to the movants as both 'respondents' and 'respondents applicants' while the ex-parte applicants also appear to be described as 'respondents' in places, making the party roles confusing
The case number and the actual title/parties of the underlying judicial review application are not stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mihadi & 2 others v Otieno & another (Cause E036 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2021 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2021/eng@2025-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.