Kadukha v Kenya National Private Security Workers Union (Petition E029 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 482 (KLR)

8. In the directions, the Union was granted leave and ordered to file and serve a response to the Petition on or before 5 February 2024 (it had been served with the Petition on 14 November 2023 but did not file a response). 9. Despite the leave, the Union did not file a response within the agreed timelines (replying afidavit and submissions filed without leave on 1 March 2024). 10. The Petitioner filed his submissions on 16 February 2024. 11. The Court has considered the Petition, supporting afidavit and submissions. Unfair disciplinary process/right to be heard 12. The Union issued a show-cause letter dated 17 May 2023 to the Petitioner and requested him to respond in writing to outlined 4 allegations and also prepare for an oral hearing. 13. Although the Petitioner initially wrote to the Union seeking more particulars, it is clear from his response dated 12 June 2023, that the particulars were supplied and he gave a comprehensive written explanation. 14. Apart from the opportunity to make written representations, the Union afiorded the Petitioner two more opportunities on 9 June 2023 and 8 September 2023, to make oral representations. The Petitioner honoured both opportunities. 15. The Petitioner was informed of the allegations to confront through the show-cause letter dated 17 May 2023 and the last oral hearing took place on 8 September 2023, a period of more than 30 days. 16. The assertions by the Petitioner, therefore, he was not afiorded an opportunity to make representations is not borne out by the evidence. Indefinite suspension 17. The Petitioner also contended that he had been suspended indefinitely and this ran afoul of his right to fair administrative action as set out in Article 47 of the Constitution. The suspension letter indicated that the suspension was for 6 months, but without any further explanation, it also referred to indefinite suspension. 18. The Petitioner’s suspension letter was vague as to the exact period of suspension, but the Petitioner either through design or inadvertence failed to place the Union’s Constitution before the Court to enable the Court to ascertain the period of suspension provided therein. 19. The Court is therefore unable to make a finding as to the unfairness or lawfulness of the suspension. Alternative dispute resolution avenues 20. Clause 22(v) of the Union’s Constitution as gleaned from what has been placed before the Court by the Petitioner provides that a member who has been suspended may appeal to the National Delegates Conference. 21. The Petitioner did not explore that avenue before moving to Court and the Court finds he moved the Court prematurely. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/482/eng@2024-03-06 2

page 2 of 3

Constitutional Issues for Adjudication 22. The Court has also keenly perused the instant Petition and has not found any constitutional issue that warranted the Petitioner invoking the Court’s jurisdiction through a Constitutional Petition. Conclusion and Orders 23. The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Union violated his rights. He moved the Court prematurely. 24. The Petition is dismissed with no order on costs. DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED IN KISUMU ON THIS 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024. RADIDO STEPHEN, MCIARB JUDGE Appearances For Petitioner K’owinoh & Co. Advocates For Respondent D.B. Wati & Co. Advocates Court Assistant Chemwolo https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/482/eng@2024-03-06 3

page 3 of 3