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 OutNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 2607 (KLR)

Kenya Union Domestic Hotels, Educational Institutions & Hospital Workers v Management Committee Kakamega Sports Club (Cause E015 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2607 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 September 2025
DNDavid Nderitu
3,645 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant trade union (KUDHEIHA), on behalf of its member Wilberforce Okunga (the grievant), filed a memorandum of claim dated 25th April 2024 seeking unconditional reinstatement with salary arrears, or in the alternative terminal benefits totalling Kshs.147,133 (payment in lieu of notice, service gratuity, leave days and adjusted salary), plus costs. The claimant alleged that the grievant's termination on 31st January 2023 for alleged loss/theft of timber was unfair and unlawful, and that the real reason was his election as shop steward, amounting to unfair labour practice under Article 41 of the Constitution. The respondent denied the claim, raising a preliminary point that the Management Committee of Kakamega Sports Club, as named, lacks legal capacity to be sued, and otherwise contending the termination followed a fair disciplinary process. The court framed three issues: capacity of the named respondent, merits, and costs. The claimant notably did not respond to the capacity objection. The court found the named respondent is neither a registered company, society nor juridical personality; the CBA, appointment contract, disciplinary documents and termination letter were all executed by Kakamega Sports Club itself, and no employment relationship was proved with the named committee. Agreeing with the authorities cited by the respondent's counsel, the court struck out the cause. In the alternative, it held the termination was fair and lawful, the grievant having received a show-cause letter, a hearing with union representatives, and payment of terminal dues. The court made no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondent as named (Management Committee, Kakamega Sports Club) has legal capacity to be sued

Holding

The named respondent is neither a registered company, society nor a juridical personality; it does not exist in law and the cause is bad in law and misconceived, warranting striking out.

Reasoning

The claimant did not reply to the preliminary objection or address it in submissions. The CBA, appointment letter, disciplinary proceedings, minutes and termination letter were all issued by Kakamega Sports Club, not the committee. No evidence showed the committee had any role in the employment relationship, and no labour relationship was demonstrated with the named respondent.

p. 6
02

Whether the termination of the grievant was fair and lawful (in the alternative)

Holding

Even if properly sued, the claim would fail: the termination was fair and lawful in substance and procedure.

Reasoning

The employer lost property in the grievant's care, giving basis for disciplinary action under Section 43(2) of the Employment Act. The grievant received a show-cause letter, attended a disciplinary hearing with two union representatives, admitted and apologised for the misconduct, signed the minutes, was informed of the right to appeal and was paid terminal dues. The claim was an afterthought.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • While a legal entity may sue or be sued on behalf of others under Article 22 of the Constitution, parties cannot sue or be sued by entities lacking legal capacity to act as such.
  • Misjoinder of a party does not defeat a cause, but a respondent that does not exist in law lacks capacity and the cause must be struck out.
  • Once a party's capacity is challenged, the party naming it bears the burden of proving it has capacity to be sued.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The cause by the claimant is struck out for the named respondent lacks capacity to be sued as such
  2. 2.There is no order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 22
  • Employment ActSections 35, 41, 43, 43(2), 44(4), 45
  • Evidence ActSections 107 & 108

Cases cited (4)

  • Football Kenya Federation V Kenya Premier League Limited & 4 Others
    (2015) eKLR
  • Simu Vendors Association V Town Clerk, City Council of Nairobi & Another
    (2005) eKLR
  • Evans Otiendeh Omolo V School Committee Union Primary School
    (2015) eKLR
  • Kenya Revenue Authority V Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi & Others
    (2019) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Article 162(2)(a) jurisdiction implied; dispute referred after conciliation under the Labour Relations framework)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union Domestic Hotels, Educational Institutions & Hospital Workers v Management Committee Kakamega Sports Club (Cause E015 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2607 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2607/eng@2025-09-26

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