Rift Valley Railways Workers Union v Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme (krsrbs) & 3 others

3. During the mention of this matter on 5/2/2026, Ms Kiru appeared for the Plaintiff and informed the court that they had filed documents to show that they have been instructed to represent the Plaintiff. I directed that this issue of representation of the Plaintiff be resolved first through oral submissions and fixed the date for that purpose on 12/2/2026. 4. On that date, Ms Kiiru appeared for the Plaintiff, Rift Valley Workers Union. Mr. Munayi also appeared for the same Plaintiff. Ms Mungai appeared on behalf of Ms Ndirangu for the 1st Defendant; Ms Wetunga appeared for the 2nd Defendant and Mr. Kamande appeared on behalf of Prof. Muma for the 3rd Defendant. 5. Mr. Munayi Isaac, submitted that this matter was filed four years ago and that the parties have been in court all that time with him representing the Plaintiff; that the Plaintiff authorized him to represent the Union; that Ms Kiiru came on board and purported to represent the Plaintiffs without authority to do so; that a Notice of Appointment is not evidence of appointment but a notification; that she has not filed a Memorandum of Appointment and that those who purported to have instructed her have filed notices to act in person. 6. Ms Kiiru submitted that the Plaintiff who has instructed her firm is the Rift Valley Railways Workers Union and that her firm has filed a Notice of Appointment dated 21/11/2025 to show that the Rift Valley Railways Workers Union has appointed the firm of Omusolo Mungai & Co. Advocates to act on its behalf. She submitted that there are minutes of the Union to that effect. 7. It was submitted further that Mr. Munayi is the Secretary General of the Plaintiff and that this position does not give him authority to represent the Plaintiffand therefore the Applicant’s representation of the Plaintiffs herein is unlawful. Counsel referred this case to the case in ELC Misc. Application No. E067 of 2023 (the ELC matter) wherein Mr. Munayi did not tender any documentation to demonstrate his authority to act for the Plaintiff. 8. In a rejoinder, Mr. Munayi reiterated his earlier submission that the advocate has not provided a Memorandum of Appointment to demonstrate that she had authority to act for the Plaintiffs in the matter. In respect of the ELC matter, Mr. Munayi’s submitted that the same is under review and that it must be demonstrated that the advocate had received proper instructions to act in the matter. Analysis and Determination 9. The singular issue for determination is the issue of representation of the Plaintiff in these proceedings. I have considered rival submissions that Mr. Munayi has been authorized to act for and represent the Plaintiffs in this matter on the one hand or whether the firm of Omusolo Mungai & Co. Advocates has been instructed to come on record and act for the Plaintiff. 10. I have read the record. It shows that Mr. Munayi has all along appeared in the matter on behalf of the Plaintiffs in addition to filing pleadings and applications on behalf of their behalf. The record shows that when the matter came up before the court (Visram, J.) on 21.08.2023, Mr. Munayi mentioned that while he was not an advocate by profession, the Civil Procedure Act (CPA) nonetheless gives him the legal right to act as the authorized representative of the Plaintiff. He did not, however, refer to any specific provisions in that regard. 11. I have read Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) which generally provides for recognized agents and advocates who may appear in a matter and act for a party. Of particular relevance are Rules 1 and 2 of the said Order, which provide thus: Rule 1: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7390/eng@2026-04-13 2

page 2 of 4

Any application to or appearance or act in any court required or authorized by the law to be made or done by a party in such court may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by an advocate duly appointed to act on his behalf: ... Rule 2: The recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are— (a) subject to approval by the court in any particular suit persons holding powers of attorney or an affidavit sworn by the party authorizing them to make such appearances and applications and do such acts on behalf of parties; (b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorized to make and do such appearances, applications and acts; (c) in respect of a corporation, an officer of the corporation duly authorized under the corporate seal. 12. From the foregoing, it is evident that express authorization to act and/or to appear on behalf of a party before the court ought to be given by the relevant party. In the present instance, upon my perusal of the record, I have observed that Mr. Munayi did not tender any material affirming his authority to represent the Plaintiff and/or draw and file pleadings and applications on its behalf in this matter, under Order 9 CPR or at all. He similarly did not demonstrate by way of any cogent material that his position as Secretary General of the Plaintiff would automatically authorize him to act on its behalf in any legal proceedings. 13. In the absence of any credible material to indicate otherwise therefore, I find that Mr. Munayi Opondo Isaac has no legal authority to act for or file the applications on behalf of the Plaintiff. 14. Regarding representation by the firm of Omusolo Mungai & Co. Advocates, I have noted from the record that a Notice of Appointment of Advocates dated 21/11/2025 was filed by the said firm, indicating that the Plaintiff had instructed them to act for it, in the present matter. Whereas Mr. Munayi has sought to challenge the said Notice, he did not tender any credible material to support his assertions that the same is invalid and that a Memorandum of Appointment ought to have been tendered alongside the Notice, as proof of authority. 15. In the absence of any contrary material therefore, I am persuaded that the firm of Omusolo Mungai & Co. Advocates is properly on record for the Plaintiff. Consequently, I make the following orders: 16. a. That Mr. Munayi Isaac Opondo lacks the legal authority to act for the Plaintiff in this matter. b. That the firm of Omusolo Mungai & Co. Advocates is deemed to be properly on record for the Plaintiff vide the Notice of Appointment of Advocates dated 21/11/2025. c. That I make no order as to costs It is so ordered. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7390/eng@2026-04-13 3

page 3 of 4

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2026. S. N. MUTUKU JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7390/eng@2026-04-13 4

page 4 of 4