Kenya Building, Construction, Timber & Furniture Employees v China Road & Bridge Cooperation (Miscellaneous Application E026 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2257 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 2257 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E026 OF 2026 J RIKA, J JULY 30, 2026 BETWEEN KENYA BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION, TIMBER & FURNITURE EMPLOYEES .............................................................................................. APPLICANT AND CHINA ROAD & BRIDGE COOPERATION .................................. RESPONDENT RULING 1. Through its application dated 13th April 2026, the Applicant Union seeks the Court to adopt as its Judgment, an agreement executed by the Parties on 25th April 10, 2026. 2. The Respondent is identied as China Road & Bridge Cooperation. The commonly known Chinese outt in this industry, is China Road & Bridge Corporation. 3. The Applicant is not clear when the agreement was executed. 25th April 10, 2026, given at prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion, is not a comprehensible date. 4. The application is founded on the adavit of the Applicant’s General Secretary Julius Macharia Maina, sworn on 13th April 2026. 5. He explains that the Parties have a recognition agreement. 6. The Claimant’s members, workers at the Respondent’s Ol Karia Geothermal Power Plant at Naivasha, Nakuru County, went on a go-slow, relating to wage dispute. 7. The dispute was brought to the attention of the Labour Oce, Naivasha. Parties were invited for a consultative meeting, held on 25th March 2026. 8. Parties agreed on the wage dispute, and it was resolved that normal working resumes at the Plant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2257/eng@2026-07-30 1
page 1 of 2
9. The Claimant states that the Respondent reneged, stating that its representative did not have capacity to execute the agreement. 10. The Respondent opposes the application, relying on the adavit of its Human Resource Manager Wang Qing Yan, sworn on 28th April 2026. 11. Yan explains, that the signatory to the agreement was an unauthorized personnel, who could not bind the Respondent. 12. The Respondent is a large company, actively engaged in multiple cites, and with thousands of workers. Its subcontractors could not commit the principal, on matters involving workers’ benets. 13. Derick Mutua and Simon Kisavi represented an entity called Ace Protex Services, and could not contract on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent is a responsible Employer, who honours its commitments, whenever validly entered into. 14. It was agreed at the last mention on 12th May 2026, that the application is determined based on the Parties’ adavits and submissions on record. The Court Finds: - 15. The Miscellaneous Application led by the Union, raises issues which cannot be determined on adavit evidence alone. 16. There is no consensus on the capacity of Simon Kisavi, to negotiate collectively for the Respondent, on any collective bargaining subject, and to enter into a wage agreement with the Claimant Union. 17. The agreement executed on 25th March 2026, is not established to have followed the negotiating procedure, prescribed in the recognition agreement between the Parties, which came into force on 5th May 1987. 18. The Claimant appears to have engaged Ace Protex Services, a human resource consultancy rm engaged by the Respondent to manage workers at Ol Karia project, in negotiating terms and conditions of employment of its members, without involving the principal Employer. 19. Ace Protex Services is a stranger to the recognition agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent. 20. It is not likely that such terms and conditions of employment, negotiated and crafted outside the existing collective bargaining structures, can be enforced by a Court on the strength of a Miscellaneous Application. 21. There are triable issues and Ace Protex Services, would probably be a necessary party, in any Claim seeking enforcement of the agreement dated 25th March 2026. it is ordered: a. The application is dismissed, without prejudice to the Applicant’s initiation of a fresh Claim. b. No order on the costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, UNDER RULE 68 [5] OF THE E&LRC [PROCEDURE] RULES, 2024, THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY 2026. JAMES RIKA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2257/eng@2026-07-30 2
page 2 of 2