Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
IndustrialStruck OutNot stated in judgment· [2014] KEIC 122 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Hair and Beauty Salon Workers v Style Industries Ltd (Cause 578 of 2013) (Employment and Labour) [2014] KEIC 122 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
1 April 2014
NMNzioki wa Makau
251 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court struck out a union's entire case because the representative had no proof he was a duly elected union official.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
In a short ruling delivered at Nairobi on 1 April 2014, the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Nzioki wa Makau J) determined a preliminary objection raised by the Respondent against a suit filed by the Claimants, a trade union claiming remedies available under the Labour Relations Act. The objection went to locus: the Claimants were represented by Mr. James Onkoba Tongi, who the Respondent contended was unqualified in terms of Section 2 of the Labour Relations Act, and the Claimants were said to have failed to meet the thresholds in Sections 54(1), 54(6) and 54(7) of the Labour Institutions Act. The Court accepted that any official of a trade union may take up a cause on behalf of members, but observed that 'official' is statutorily defined as a duly elected official of a trade union or employers' organization, including a member of the executive and a branch official. No credentials were presented by Mr. Tongi to show he held such office. The Court further noted the absence of any exhibit proving membership under Sections 54(6) and (7) of the Labour Institutions Act, and that the dispute had not been referred to conciliation under Part VIII of the Labour Relations Act, rendering the suit premature. Accordingly, the Court found the suit was filed by an incompetent person and struck it out with costs of the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Locus standi of the union representative

Holding

Mr. James Onkoba Tongi lacked the credentials to qualify as an 'official' under Section 2 of the Labour Relations Act; the suit was filed by an incompetent person and was struck out

Reasoning

The Court accepted that any official of a trade union may take up a cause on behalf of members, but Section 2 defines an official as a duly elected official including a member of the executive and a branch official. No credentials were presented by Mr. Tongi to establish that he falls within this definition, so his representation of the Claimants was incompetent and the suit could not stand.

p. 1
02

Compliance with the statutory pre-litigation thresholds and conciliation requirement

Holding

The Claimants failed to exhibit proof of membership under Sections 54(6) and (7) of the Labour Institutions Act, and the dispute was not referred to conciliation under Part VIII of the Labour Relations Act, rendering the suit premature

Reasoning

The Court noted that although the Claimants sought remedies available under the Labour Relations Act, there was no exhibit showing proof of membership as required by Sections 54(6) and (7) of the Labour Institutions Act. Further, the matter was never referred to conciliation as required under Part VIII of the Labour Relations Act, making the suit premature on that score.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Any official of a trade union may take up a cause on behalf of members, but 'official' is confined by Section 2 of the Labour Relations Act to a duly elected official, including a member of the executive and a branch official, and credentials must be presented to prove status
  • A suit filed by a person unqualified to represent a trade union is filed by an incompetent person and is liable to be struck out

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is struck out as filed by an incompetent person
  2. 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations ActSection 2; Part VIII
  • Labour Institutions ActSections 54(1), 54(6) and 54(7)
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated; jurisdiction exercised under the Labour Relations Act and Labour Institutions Act framework

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (6)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Hair and Beauty Salon Workers v Style Industries Ltd (Cause 578 of 2013)  (Employment and Labour) [2014] KEIC 122 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keic/2014/122/eng@2014-04-01

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