Omondi & another v Kenya Chemical Workers Union & 2 others (Constitutional Petition E214 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2418 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Petitioners were discriminated upon and their labour rights violated
- 2.Whether the 2nd and 3rd Respondents engaged in abuse of the office of the 1st Respondent
- 3.Whether the Petitioners were entitled to the relief sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the petitioners' labour rights were violated and they were discriminated against
Yes. The respondents discriminated against the petitioners by excluding them from union activities on account of filing the suit, contrary to Articles 41, 48 and Section 4 of the Labour Relations Act.
The court found a resolution barring the National Chairman and Vice Chairman from official duties because they had sued the union. The court held this penalized their exercise of the right of access to justice under Article 48 and trade union rights under Article 41 and Section 4 of the LRA, which protect officials from victimization or disciplinary prejudice for exercising their rights. The respondents did not justify the exclusion.
Whether the 2nd and 3rd Respondents engaged in abuse of office
No. The claims concerning the sale of vehicle KBW 632Y and misappropriation failed; the 1st petitioner attended and signed the minutes ratifying the sale, and there was no evidence of exhaustion of internal mechanisms or reporting to the Registrar.
The court found the petitioners were in the Central Council meeting where the sale was discussed and the 1st petitioner signed the minutes, which recorded that Jacob Odundo had made full payment of Kshs.700,000. The court also held that under Section 41(1) of the LRA, allegations of unlawful expenditure must first be reported to the Registrar, and only the Registrar or five or more interested persons may seek an injunction; only two petitioners were before the court.
Whether petitioners were entitled to outstanding allowances
Partly. The court directed the union to pay all outstanding allowances within 30 days, but held that taxes on the allowances were lawfully due.
The minutes of the 20th April 2024 Central Council meeting, which the 1st petitioner attended and signed, showed that taxation of allowances had been discussed and agreed. The court found it disingenuous for the 1st petitioner to dispute the minutes he signed. Nonetheless, outstanding allowances remained payable and the court directed payment within 30 days.
Legal principles established
#- Suspending or excluding a union official for initiating litigation against the union is discriminatory and penalizes the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right of access to justice.
- Failure by members to exhaust internal union dispute resolution mechanisms does not license the executive to unilaterally exclude or suspend an official without strict administrative fairness.
Court orders
#- 1.The union to pay, within 30 days, all outstanding allowances to the petitioners for their sitting as National Chairman and Vice Chairman; taxes held due under the law
- 2.If the petitioners are members, they be granted access to the union members' social media accounts, including WhatsApp
- 3.Costs of the petition awarded to the petitioners, payable by the 1st respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 20, 22, 23, 41, 47, 48 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya (constitutional petition for breach of fundamental rights, employment and labour relations jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Order that the 1st Petitioner's mandate as bank signatory shall not be bypassed
Overtaken by events; petitioners replaced as National Chairman and Vice Chairman following elections
Full and unrestricted access to minutes, records and files of Central Council meetings
Petitioners no longer in office
Declaration that the meeting of 26th October 2024 was not properly constituted and its resolutions not binding
Internal matter within the union's internal mechanisms; not a constitutional issue
Declaration nullifying all actions emanating from the resolution of the 26th October 2024 meeting
Internal matter within the union's internal mechanisms; not a constitutional issue
Documentation of the sale process of motor vehicle KBW 632Y
Sale was ratified by the Central Council
Audit of the 1st Respondent's accounts, assets and liabilities by ICPAK-appointed auditors
Petitioners did not meet the legal threshold; alleged unlawful expenditure should be reported to the Registrar of Trade Unions
Costs
The petitioners are awarded costs of the petition payable by the 1st respondent.
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.
In the upshot the court held the petitioners were discriminated against by being excluded from the union activities on account of the instant case.
The court held they be paid the lawful outstanding allowances of their sitting as National Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively within 30 days and that they be granted access to the union members' social media account, including WhatsApp, if still members.
The petitioners are awarded costs of the petition payable by the 1st respondent.
Suspending or excluding an official for initiating litigation penalizes the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right.
failure to do so does not give executive committees free license to unilaterally "exclude" or suspend an official without strict administrative fairness.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the parties' case numbers inconsistently: the heading and text cite Petition E214 of 2025, but a resolution quoted in evidence refers to "PETITION E214/2026".
Dates in the record are internally implausible (petition dated 15th October 2025 but replying affidavit sworn 10th February 2026 and preliminary objection dated 25th May 2026, judgment delivered 20th August 2026), suggesting possible typographical errors in years.
Reliefs are mislabelled in the determination: the judgment jumps from relief (i) to (m) and (n), omitting (j), (k) and (l) as lettered in the petition.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omondi & another v Kenya Chemical Workers Union & 2 others (Constitutional Petition E214 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2418 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). NBI ELRC Petition No. E214 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2418/eng@2026-08-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.