[2018] KEELRC 2392 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 2392 (KLR)

The court found that the claimants had not demonstrated any flaw in the union's ongoing disciplinary process that would warrant judicial intervention. The disciplinary proceedings were still pending before the National Executive Board, and the claimants' appeal against suspension had not been resolved. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 2392 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: David K. Songok; Applicant: Agnes Githumbi; Applicant: Beatrice Omulindi; Respondent: Ernest N. Nadome; Respondent: Shadrack Kiprono Kimeiywo; Respondent: Michael Opiyo; Respondent: Kenya Electrical Trades & Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Registrar of Trade Unions
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 2079 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction and Reinstatement
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Trade Union Discipline, Internal Union Governance, Injunctive Relief, Natural Justice, Suspension and Reinstatement
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Trade Union Discipline Internal Union Governance Injunctive Relief Natural Justice Suspension and Reinstatement

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David K. Songok

Applicant

Agnes Githumbi

Applicant

Beatrice Omulindi

Applicant

Ernest N. Nadome

Respondent

Shadrack Kiprono Kimeiywo

Respondent

Michael Opiyo

Respondent

Kenya Electrical Trades & Allied Workers Union

Respondent

Registrar of Trade Unions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction and Reinstatement

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a mandatory injunction to lift the suspension and reinstate the claimants to their union positions pending determination of the claim.
  2. 2 Whether the court should compel payment of withheld honorarium and allowances to the claimants.
  3. 3 Whether the court should interfere with the internal disciplinary process of the union at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimants had not demonstrated any flaw in the union's ongoing disciplinary process that would warrant judicial intervention. The disciplinary proceedings were still pending before the National Executive Board, and the claimants' appeal against suspension had not been resolved. The court emphasized that unions have autonomy over their internal affairs, including disciplinary matters, and judicial interference is only justified where procedural unfairness or illegality is established. Since the applicants failed to show that the process was procedurally defective or that their rights to natural justice were violated, the court declined to grant the mandatory...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for mandatory injunction and reinstatement is dismissed.
  • The claimants are directed to exhaust internal disciplinary processes before seeking further redress from the court.