Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment

Kenya Engineering Workers Union v M/S Landmark Holdings (Cause E491 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2455 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
17 September 2025
AJABUODHA NELSON JORUM
1,727 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a union's recognition claim because the employer was already bound by a court order to recognise a rival union.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant union sued the respondent employer seeking an order compelling the respondent to sign a recognition agreement, to deduct and remit union dues, to pay dues arrears, and restraining it from victimizing the claimant's members or remitting dues to any other union. The claimant pleaded that it had recruited 73 of the respondent's 80 unionisable employees (about 92%) and served check-off forms (Form 'S') between May and June 2022, invoking sections 48, 54 and 62 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and Articles 36, 41 and 47 of the Constitution. The respondent denied the claim, asserting that some of the named employees were already members of the rival Kenya Concrete, Structural, Ceramic Tiles, Wood Ply and Interior Designs Workers Union (KCWIDU), that some signatures were alleged forgeries, that names were duplicated on the check-off forms, and that its engagement with KCWIDU was grounded on a subsisting judgment in Cause No. 1492 of 2015 delivered on 31st July 2018, ordering deduction and remittance of dues and execution of a recognition agreement with KCWIDU. The matter was disposed of by written submissions. The court framed the dispute as the refusal to recognize the claimant despite check-off forms showing over 51% recruitment. It held that an employer can only recognize one union for collective bargaining purposes, and since the claimant and KCWIDU share a common sphere of operation and the respondent remained bound by the 2018 court order, the court could not grant the orders sought unless and until the respondent lawfully disengaged from KCWIDU. The suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the respondent has refused and/or ignored to recognize the claimant and deduct and remit union dues despite receiving check-off forms showing recruitment of more than 51% of the unionisable employees
  2. 2.Whether the respondent's existing engagement with and remittance of dues to KCWIDU pursuant to a court order in Cause No. 1492 of 2015 precludes recognition of the claimant

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant met the recognition threshold under sections 48 and 54 of the Labour Relations Act

Holding

The court did not reach the recognition threshold question; the claim failed because the respondent was already engaged with a rival union, KCWIDU, pursuant to a subsisting court order in Cause No. 1492 of 2015

Reasoning

The court identified the complaint as the respondent's refusal to recognize the claimant and remit dues despite check-off forms showing recruitment of over 51% of unionisable employees. The respondent countered with allegations of duplicate names, forged signatures, and existing engagement with KCWIDU under a court order. The court held that an employer can recognize only one union and, while bound by the Cause No. 1492 of 2015 order, could not grant the claimant's prayers.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer may recognize only one union for purposes of collective bargaining for employees within the union's sphere of operation
  • A court cannot order recognition and deduction of union dues in favour of a union where the employer remains lawfully engaged with another union under a subsisting court order

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claimant's suit is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

AJ
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Reference to sections 48, 54 and 62 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and Articles 36, 41 and 47 of the Constitution (court not stated to have invoked a specific jurisdictional provision)

Relief refused

#

Order compelling the respondent to sign the Recognition Agreement

The respondent is already engaged with KCWIDU under a court order; the court cannot grant the orders until the respondent lawfully disengages from KCWIDU

p. 4

Orders for deduction and remittance of union dues to the claimant, non-victimization, payment of arrears, and restraint from negotiating with or remitting dues to another union

Same as above - the employer can only recognize one union for collective bargaining, and it remains bound by the order in Cause No. 1492 of 2015

p. 4

Costs

Dismissed with no order as to 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.

An employer can only recognize one union for purposes of collective bargaining on behalf of employees falling within the industry represented by the union.
p. 4Single union recognition rule
Unless and until the respondent lawfully disengages from KCWIDU, this court is not able to grant the orders sought by the claimant in this suit.
p. 4Effect of subsisting court order with rival union
In conclusion the suit is found without merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
p. 4Final orders - dismissal and costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment does not state the case number, parties' full names, or the neutral citation of this suit

minor

Inconsistent spellings of the rival union's name (KCSCW&I / KCWIDU / 'Wood Fly' vs 'Wood Ply')

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v M/S Landmark Holdings (Cause E491 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2455 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2455/eng@2025-09-17

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