Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers’ Union v Omulama & 9 others (Petition 4 of 2018) [2020] KESC 59 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Supreme Court: cause of action for trade union registration refusal arises on refusal date, not application.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union over registering a new floriculture union. The Court ruled that the key date was when the Registrar refused registration in August 2011, after the 2010 Constitution took effect, so the Constitution applied. It also said courts cannot register unions themselves—only the Registrar can. The appellant's rights were not violated because it was already registered.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.What are the parameters of registration of a trade union?
Key legal issues
#Whether the trial court applied the Constitution 2010 retrospectively when the application for registration was made before its promulgation.
The cause of action arose on the date of refusal of registration (30 August 2011), which was after the promulgation of the Constitution 2010, so the 2010 Constitution was applicable. Even if the cause of action had arisen earlier, a court could draw insights from the 2010 Constitution for a fair resolution.
The court examined the record and found that the application for registration was made on 16 February 2010, but the refusal notification was on 30 August 2011. The issue in dispute was 'refusal of registration,' so the cause of action crystallized on the date of refusal. Since this was after the 2010 Constitution came into force, the 2010 Constitution applied. The court also cited its precedent in Samuel Kamau Macharia and Town Council of Awendo to support the proposition that a court can draw insights from the 2010 Constitution even for pre-promulgation disputes.
Whether the appellant's right to exist as a general and giant trade union under Article 41 of the Constitution was infringed by the registration of the 1st to 9th respondents' union.
The appellant's rights were not infringed because the appellant is already registered and enjoying its rights. The appellant was an interested party, not a primary party, and the primary impact was on the 1st to 9th respondents.
The court noted that the appellant was already a registered trade union enjoying its rights under Article 41. The registration of another union in a different sector (floriculture/horticulture vs. plantations/agriculture) did not infringe on the appellant's existence. The court emphasized that the appellant was an interested party, and the primary parties' rights were paramount. The court cited Francis Karioki Muruatetu to support the principle that interested parties cannot introduce new issues.
Whether the trial court usurped the Registrar of Trade Unions' power by ordering registration of the 1st to 9th respondents' union.
The trial court did not usurp the Registrar's power; it ordered the Registrar to register the union, which is within the court's jurisdiction. The subsequent registration by the Registrar cured any defect in the order.
The court reviewed the record and found that the registration certificate was issued by the Senior Assistant Registrar of Trade Unions, not the court. The court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the court's role is to order registration, not to register the union itself. The Registrar's compliance with the order cured any potential defect.
Legal principles established
#- Cause of action for refusal to register a trade union arises on the date of the refusal notification, not the application date.
- Courts can draw insights from the 2010 Constitution for fair resolution of disputes arising before its promulgation.
- Registration of a trade union is a statutory duty of the Registrar of Trade Unions; courts can only order registration, not register the union.
- An interested party cannot introduce new issues; the primary parties' interests are paramount in a dispute.
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition of Appeal dated 6 March 2018 be and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.The appellant shall bear the costs of the 1st to 9th respondents.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya
- Nairobi Civil Appeal No 141 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Relief refused
#Setting aside the Judgment/Order of the Court of Appeal
The Supreme Court found no reason to disturb the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Costs
The appellant shall bear the costs of the 1st to 9th respondents.
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.
The Petition of Appeal dated 6 March 2018 be and is hereby dismissed.
The appellant shall bear the costs of the 1st to 9th respondents.
We are inclined to agree with both the trial court and the learned Judges of Appeal that the cause of action was refusal of registration of the appellants by the Registrar of trade unions" and that the same arose on August 30, 2011, a year later after the promulgation of the Constitution 2010.
A court of law can draw insights from the Constitution 2010, for just and fair resolution of a dispute that may have arisen prior to the promulgation of the Constitution 2010.
We thus agree with the court of Appeal's finding that the role of registration of a trade union is a statutory duty of the Registrar of Trade Unions and that a relevant court only has jurisdiction to order registration of the proposed union
An interested party may not frame its own fresh issues or introduce new issues for determination by the court.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Cause of action timing for union registration
When challenging a refusal to register a trade union, the cause of action accrues on the date of the refusal notification, not the application date. This determines which law applies, especially regarding the 2010 Constitution. Ensure you plead the correct date to avoid statute of limitations issues and to properly frame the applicable legal framework.
Registrar's exclusive registration power
Employers should note that the Registrar of Trade Unions has exclusive statutory authority to register unions. Courts can only order registration, not register themselves. This clarifies the separation of powers and may affect strategies when opposing or supporting union registration. Any court order directing registration must be executed by the Registrar, who can cure defects in the order.
Your rights as union applicant or interested party
If you apply to register a trade union, the key date is when the Registrar refuses your application—that is when your cause of action arises. As an interested party in a union registration dispute, you cannot raise new issues; your role is limited to supporting or opposing the primary parties' positions. Your existing rights as a registered union are not automatically infringed by registering another union in a different sector.
Frequently asked questions
#When does the cause of action arise for refusal to register a trade union in Kenya?+
The cause of action arises on the date the Registrar notifies you of the refusal, not the date you applied. In this case, the refusal was on 30 August 2011, which was after the 2010 Constitution took effect, so the Constitution applied.
Can a Kenyan court register a trade union itself?+
No. The Supreme Court confirmed that only the Registrar of Trade Unions has the statutory power to register a union. A court can only order the Registrar to register a union. If the Registrar then issues a certificate, that cures any defect in the court order.
Does the 2010 Constitution apply to trade union disputes that started before its enactment in Kenya?+
Yes, if the cause of action (e.g., refusal of registration) occurred after the Constitution took effect. Even if the dispute began earlier, courts can draw insights from the 2010 Constitution for a fair resolution, as the Supreme Court stated.
What are the rights of an interested party in a trade union registration case in Kenya?+
An interested party cannot introduce new issues or frame fresh questions for the court. Their role is limited to supporting or opposing the primary parties' positions. The court's focus remains on the rights of the main parties, not the interested party.
Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Rea Vipingo Limited & another (Cause E008 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2098 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2098 (KLR)17 Jul 2025
- Gatua v Mathenge (Civil Appeal (Application) 94 of 2018) [2024] KECA 1318 (KLR)[2024] KECA 1318 (KLR)27 Sept 2024
- Mint Holdings Limited v Kinluck Holdings Limited & another (Civil Application 6 of 2019) [2024] KECA 586 (KLR)[2024] KECA 586 (KLR)24 May 2024
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers’ Union v Omulama & 9 others (Petition 4 of 2018) [2020] KESC 59 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Petition 4 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2020/59/eng@2020-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.