[1998] KEHC 181 (KLR)
The court found that the 2nd respondent, Registrar of Trade Unions, lacked the locus standi to convene the union meeting and that the mandatory six weeks' notice required by the union's constitution was not given. The court further noted that the 1st respondent supported the injunction, and that holding the meeting...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] KEHC 181 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Wanjala Mwaseme; Defendant: Kenya Scientific Research International Technical and Allied Institutions Workers Union; Defendant: Registrar of Trade Unions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 773 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- Application for injunction granted.
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Trade Union Governance, Injunctive Relief, Union Constitution Compliance
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Wanjala Mwaseme
Plaintiff
Kenya Scientific Research International Technical and Allied Institutions Workers Union
Defendant
Registrar of Trade Unions
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 2nd respondent had the locus standi to convene the union meeting.
- 2 Whether the meeting notice complied with the union constitution.
- 3 Whether the injunction to stop the meeting was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 2nd respondent, Registrar of Trade Unions, lacked the locus standi to convene the union meeting and that the mandatory six weeks' notice required by the union's constitution was not given. The court further noted that the 1st respondent supported the injunction, and that holding the meeting as scheduled would breach the union's constitution and potentially perpetuate undemocratic practices. Therefore, the injunction stopping the meeting was justified and the application succeeded.
Court Disposition
Application for injunction granted.
Orders
- The meeting scheduled for 9th May, 1998 is stopped.
- The second respondent shall pay the costs of the application to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 773 OF 1996
JOHN WANJALA MWASEME..................................................................PLAINTIFF
-versus-
KENYA SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL AND
ALLIED INSTITUTIONS WORKERS
UNION....................................................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS......................................................2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
On 8th may, 1998 this court stopped the meeting scheduled for 9th May, 1998 which was convened at the instance of the second respondent. As at the time the order was issued, there was hardly any time to state the reasons for the said order. The following are the reasons.
The substratum of these proceedings is the 1st respondent. It is the union which should be calling for the said meeting. It has been alleged that the union is in breach of its constitution. Even if that be the case in calling for any meeting the provision of the constitution must be followed.
There are several branches of the union. Some have been registered but some are not. The convenor has to ensure that all concerned participate. Further the convenor must have the locus standi to call such a meeting. the 2nd respondent with respect has not established such capacity. Rules 13 and 14 of the unions constitution provides that there should be 6 weeks notice to members and branches. This was not complied with in this case.
For reasons that are not very clear but common in most unions, the 1st respondent is deeply rooted in undemocratic practices. It was feared that the holding of the said meeting would enhance the same. Further, I note that the 1st respondent supported the application for injunction. I believe it was right to take such a step as to accede to the notice of the 2nd respondent would be in breach of the constitution of the Union. For those reasons the application succeeds. The second respondent shall pay the costs of the application to the applicant. Order accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 17th day of June, 1998
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE