Wilson Sossion & Martha A. Omollo v Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) & 3 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed Wilson Sossion's bid to contest the KNUT Secretary General seat, ruling that union constitutions—not statutory permission—control who can run.
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 Petition is moot, the KNUT national elections having been conducted on 3rd April 2026
- 2.Whether the Petitioners exhausted internal dispute resolution mechanisms
- 3.Whether the 1st Petitioner is eligible to contest the office of Secretary General by dint of Section 31(4)(a) of the Labour Relations Act
- 4.Whether the 2nd Petitioner had standing to vie for national office as a non-delegate
- 5.Whether the Petitioners established violations of their constitutional rights
Key legal issues
#Effect of Section 31(4)(a) of the Labour Relations Act on eligibility of a non-member to vie for general secretary
The provision is not an absolute entitlement; the union's constitution and its autonomy under Article 41(4) govern eligibility and election mechanics
The court read Sections 31 and 34 of the Labour Relations Act together. Section 34 donates power to trade unions to conduct elections per their registered constitutions, and Article 41(4) protects union autonomy. Thus even a person not engaged in the sector must satisfy the union constitution's membership and nomination requirements; the 1st Petitioner's deregistration and non-membership disqualified him.
Mootness of the Petition after the elections were held
All issues were overtaken by events; only the interpretation of Sections 31 and 4(a) remained live and was resolved against the Petitioners
It was undisputed that the elections were held on 3rd April 2026 and offices filled. The court confined itself to the interpretive question on Section 31(4)(a), which it answered against the 1st Petitioner, and found no sustainable ground to contest the concluded elections.
Evidentiary burden on the Petitioners
The Petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving membership compliance, delegate status and violation of rights
Applying Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, the court held that he who alleges must prove. The 1st Petitioner's lump-sum deposit did not revive membership per the ruling of 1st April 2026, and the 2nd Petitioner gave no evidence of delegate status; neither demonstrated any violation of their rights.
Legal principles established
#- Section 31(4)(a) of the Labour Relations Act does not confer an absolute right on a non-member to contest the office of general secretary; the candidate must still comply with the union's constitution
- Trade unions enjoy constitutional autonomy under Article 41(4) to determine their own administration, programmes and activities, including election mechanics under Section 34 of the Labour Relations Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition dated 26th March 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Parties shall bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution (ELRC jurisdiction over labour and employment relations disputes); Labour Relations Act
Relief refused
#Declaration/finding that the 1st Petitioner was eligible to vie for Secretary General under Section 31(4)(a) of the Labour Relations Act
Section 31(4)(a) confers no absolute right; union constitution and Article 41(4) autonomy govern, and membership was not revived
Relief in respect of the 3rd April 2026 elections
Elections already held; Petition overtaken by events and Petitioners did not contest the elections on any sustainable ground
Costs
Parties shall bear their 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.
From the foregoing analysis it is clear that the provisions of section 31(1) and (4) (a) of the Labour Relations Act did not grant the 1st Petitioner the absolute right to const for the position of the Secretary General of the 1st Respondent.
This is because trade unions are associations of members who agree on how to govern themselves as mandated by the constitution provided they act in accordance with the law.
In upshot of the foregoing is that the petition dated 26 th March 2026 lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting dates for the Registrar of Trade Unions circular
Replying Affidavit describes the Court of Appeal appeal as pending while the Petition records it as decided
Case citation dated 2026 appears anachronistic relative to the judgment date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wilson Sossion & Martha A. Omollo v Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) & 3 others", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Petition No. E099 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2535/eng@2026-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.