Rotich v Registrar of Trade Unions & 2 others (Petition E051 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2721 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed a KUPPET member's constitutional challenge because it lacked precise constitutional pleading, evidence, and duplicated an earlier case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Sufficiency of pleadings in a constitutional petition
The Petition failed the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold as it cited no constitutional provision other than a reference to fair administrative action and did not spell out the manner and extent of the alleged violation
The Petition relied primarily on the Public Service Commission Act and the Labour Relations Act rather than constitutional provisions. The court held that reliance on statutory provisions before citing the Constitution showed the grievance raised no constitutional issue. The rule applies irrespective of the nature of the suit and could not be distinguished.
Sub judice and abuse of process
The Petition was conspicuously similar to Nairobi Petition No. E044 of 2024 and amounted to an abuse of the court process, though it was disposed of on merits since that petition was withdrawn
The court found the Petitioner was aware of the earlier April 2024 petition and attempted to modify its reliefs. Forum shopping by members and officials of the union was noted. Multiplicity of actions on the same matter between the same parties constitutes abuse even where a right to sue exists.
Burden and standard of proof
The Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving the alleged amendments and infringements on a balance of probabilities
The Petitioner produced only copies of two versions of the union constitution and an unsigned consent. He gave no evidence of how or when the alleged amendments were effected or registered, and no correspondence with the Registrar of Trade Unions. The court could not identify the constitutional provisions infringed or the injury suffered.
Nature of the dispute
The grievance was personal and a dispute between a member and a trade union under Section 12(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, not a constitutional rights claim
The Petitioner's legitimate expectation of ascending to union leadership upon retirement of current officials revealed a personal rather than communal or corporate grievance, which the court held could not be denigrated as a member-union dispute.
Legal principles established
#- A constitutional petition must set out with reasonable precision the provisions said to be infringed and the manner of infringement
- Where suits over the same subject matter are pending, the later suit ought to be stayed
- Multiplicity of actions on the same matter between the same parties is an abuse of court process
- The burden of proof in a civil case lies on the party who would fail if no evidence were given, on a balance of probabilities
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition dated 17th December, 2024 is dismissed with costs to the 2nd and 3rd respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya (as invoked by the Petitioner); Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Section 12
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rotich v Registrar of Trade Unions & 2 others (Petition E051 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2721 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kisumu ELRC Petition No. E051 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2721/eng@2025-10-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.