https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2427

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. E026 OF 2026 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND LABOUR RIGHTS DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 22, 23,27,38, 41 AND 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ELECTION RULES OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT WORKERS UNION (K) BETWEEN VESKA KANGOGO…………………………………………………….……………………………...………PETITIONER -VERSUS- COUNTY GOVERNMENT WORKERS UNION (K)..………..….…………………..……1ST RESPONDENT MR. ROBA DUBA……………………………………………………………………..…………...…2ND RESPONDENT AND REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS………………………..………………………………...INTERESTED PARTY CORAM Before Lady Justice Jemimah Keli C/A Otieno JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner commenced this suit vide an undated election petition seeking:- 2. A declaration that the 1st Respondents' actions as notified in the Circular No. 3 referenced COGWU (K)/1/NDC/2026 dated 19th January 2026 violate Articles 27, 38, 41, and 47 of the Constitution. 3. A declaration that the Circular No. 3 referenced COGWU (K)/1/NDC/2026 dated 19th January 2026 changing the election date to 16th February 2026 is illegal, null, and void. 4. An Order of Certiorari to remove into this Honourable Court and quash the decision of the 1st Respondent re-scheduling and/or calling for the Quinquennial National Elections, 2026 and issuing a Notice for the 33rd National Delegates Conference re-scheduled to Monday, 19th February 2026, as notified in its Circular No. 3 referenced COGWU (K)/1 /NDC/2026 dated 19th January 2026. 5. An order of Mandamus compelling and/or directing the 1st Respondent to conduct elections in accordance with the Union Constitution, Election Rules, and Registrar's directives and give all the prospective candidates adequate notice and time to comply with the requirements for nominations. 6. A Declaration that Article xxx of the 1st Respondent's Constitution requiring any prospective candidate for a position in the National Office to pay a punitive nomination fees of Kshs. 3,000,000.00 is illegal, irregular and null and void and as such violate Articles 27, 38, 41, and 47 of the Constitution. 7. An Order of Prohibition permanently restraining the 1st Respondent, whether by itself, its agents, servants, representatives, or officers, from enforcing and or requiring any prospective candidate for a position in the National Office to pay a punitive nomination fee of Kshs. 3,000,000.00 as provided for under Article xxx of the 1st Respondent's Constitution. 8. An Order of Mandamus compelling the 2nd Respondent (the Registrar of Trade Unions), to amend the registered constitution of the 1st Respondent by deleting and/or cause to be removed the punitive requirement under Article xx requiring any prospective candidate for a position in the National Office to pay a punitive nomination fee of Kshs. 3,000,000.00. 9. An order declaring that requiring personal details of members in the nomination forms violates the provisions of the Data Protection Act, 2019. 10. Costs of this Petition. 11. Any other relief this Honourable Court deems just and equitable. 12. The Petition was filed alongside the Supporting Affidavit sworn on 16th January 2026, with the bundle of documents in support of the Petition attached. The court, vide ruling dated 13th February 2026, expunged the exhibits under the affidavit for not being commissioned. The said exhibits were also produced by the respondent thus no prejudice as held in the ruling. 13. In response to the Petition, the Respondents filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by the 2nd Respondent on 31st January 2026; while the Interested Party filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by ANN KANAKE on 5th February 2026. The court noted the affidavit was to the application only but on issues also touching the petition. Hearing and evidence 1. The petition was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Petitioner’s case in summary 1. The Petitioner’s case is that she is a fully paid-up member of the 1st Respondent Union and expressed interest in contesting for the position of General Secretary of the 1st Respondent in accordance with the Union Constitution, Election Rules, and directives issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions. On 25th September 2025, vide a Circular bearing the same date, the Registrar of Trade Unions directed that trade unions conduct their National Elections between January and April 2026, providing sufficient time for organising, nominating candidates, and conducting elections in a fair and participatory manner. 2. In line with the said directive, the 1st Respondent, through Circular No. 2, notified members that the National Elections, including for the position of General Secretary, would be held on 27th February 2026 alongside the National Delegates Conference, inviting aspirants to plan, prepare, and submit their nomination forms. In reliance on the said Circular No. 2 and having a legitimate expectation that the National Elections would be held on 27th February 2026, the Petitioner avers that she scheduled her campaign activities, mobilized resources, and ensured that all preparations for candidacy were aligned with the stated election date. She also, through a written notification dated 22nd January 2026, formally informed the 1st Respondent of her intended candidacy. 3. The Petitioners first complaint is that on 19th January 2026, the 1st Respondent issued another Circular, Circular No. 3, abruptly changing the election date from 27th February 2026 to 16th February 2026, without public consultation, notice to aspirants, or participation by members, and without providing reasons for the abrupt change of date, thereby undermining the principles of transparency and fairness. The Petitioner pleads that the 1st Respondent's conduct of unilaterally bringing forward the election is in contravention of the Election Rules and Constitution of the 1st Respondent Union, in that it disregards Article 26.8 of the Union Constitution which requires that every candidate must meet nomination requirements at least fourteen (14) days before the National Delegates Conference (NDC). Under the Union Election Rules, all completed National Nomination Forms were to be submitted by 13th February 2026, but the change of date makes it practically impossible to comply with the submission requirements, effectively locking out candidates. 4. Her second complaint against the Respondents is that the Union Constitution was secretly amended to impose a nomination fee of Kshs. 3,000,000/=, also without prior consultation, notice, or ratification by the members of the Union, in a further bid to lock out candidates. The Petitioner states that the new nomination fee is grossly excessive, exploitative, punitive, and discriminatory, and undermines democratic governance. 5. The Petitioner’s third complaint is that despite purportedly sitting on 14th January 2026, the 1st Respondent’s Central Administration Board’s (CAB) resolution to bring forward the election date was only communicated to members on 19th January 2026, in further contravention of the principles of procedural fairness, and prevented proper participation of members or aspirants. She questions the validity of the purported Central Administration Board resolution on the premise that the said Board was non-existent as at 14th January 2026 since branch elections for new office bearers were conducted on 17th January 2026. No members were officially in office on 14th January 2026, hence any purported CAB resolution is therefore null and void. 6. The Petitioner’s fourth and fifth complaints are that Circular No. 3 requires aspirants to include their personal details in Nomination forms contrary to the Data Protection Act, which guarantees the privacy of individuals unless consent is given; and the Respondents have attempted to disqualify her from vying for the position of General Secretary for the reason that she is not employed in a County Government, contrary to Section 26.18 of the Union Constitution and Section 31 (4) of the Labour Relations Act. 7. The Petitioner pleads that she and other aspirants’ legitimate expectation that elections would be held on 27th February 2026, as officially communicated in Circular No. 2, was defeated by the Respondent’s unlawful conduct. In addition to the foregoing, the Respondents violated the rights of the Petitioner and the other aspirants to equality and freedom from discrimination under Article 27 of the Constitution, to participate in elections under Article 38, to fair labour practices which includes the right of workers to participate in trade union elections, and to fair administrative action under Article 47. Respondents’ case in brief 1. The Respondents admit that they received a notification on 25th September 2025 from the Registrar of Trade Unions on the timelines of the National Elections, and issued Circular No. 2 on 1st November 2025, setting branch elections for 17th January 2026 and National Elections to be held alongside the National Delegates Conference for 27th February 2026. They concede that on 14th January 2026, the Central Administration Board (CAB) met and resolved to reschedule the National Delegates Conference and National Elections from 27th February 2026 to 16th February 2026 in accordance with the powers donated to it to do so under Articles 20.1.1, 26 and 48 of the 1st Respondent’s Constitution. 2. The reason advanced by the Respondents for bringing forward the date of the National Elections was that some members of the 1st Respondent were expected to begin observing the holy month of Ramadhan after 16th February 2026 hence holding the National Elections during this period would have interfered with their participation in the same. The Respondents emphasize that the 1st Respondent, in reaching its decision to reschedule the National Elections, took into account religious observance, historical precedent, the risk of a significant portion of the union membership being disenfranchised or marginalized if the date of 27th February 2026 were maintained, the need for inclusivity in the union's National Delegates Conference, and the union's duty of care to ensure that all delegates participate in the National Delegates Conference. Consequently, the 1st Respondent issued Circular No. 3 formally communicating the rescheduling to all members and Branch Secretaries. The Respondents emphasize that Circular No. 3 complied with Article 20.1.2 of the Union Constitution which requires 28 days’ notice in writing of the National Delegates Conference to be issued. 3. It is admitted that Branch elections were held on 17th January 2026 as scheduled, and that the Petitioner wrote to the General Secretary a letter dated 22nd January 2026, which was received on 23rd January 2026, expressing her intention to vie for the General Secretary position, claiming to be a "fully paid-up member". This is despite only making a one-off payment of Kshs. 55,000/- through the 1st Respondent’s paybill number on the same date. She also requested for nomination information via WhatsApp from the Chief Administrative Officer; and the documents were supplied on the same day. 4. The Respondents aver that the Petitioner lodged a complaint with the Registrar of Trade Unions and the Labour Commissioner on 26th January 2026 against the rescheduling of the National Delegates Conference and National Elections, and filed the present case on the same day. In response to her complaint to the Registrar of Trade Unions, the 1st Respondent wrote separately to the Petitioner and the Registrar of Trade Unions on 28th January 2026. The Respondents state that they are aware that on 29th January 2026 the Registrar of Trade Unions also responded to the Petitioner’s letter, declining to intervene in the matter on the basis of sub-judice concerns arising from the pending court case. 5. The Respondents’ case is that the Petitioner lacks locus standi to bring the instant case, as she is not a member of the union. The Respondents explain that membership of the 1st Respondent Union requires submitting a written application to the General Secretary, formal registration under Article 13 of the Union's Constitution, and payment of membership fees/union contributions. The Petitioner did not comply with any of the mandatory requirements for membership, making only a single payment on the same day she requested nomination information, a belated attempt to manufacture standing. They point out that the Petitioner has not produced any genuine evidence of membership before the Court. 6. In any event, the Respondents contend that the Petitioner is not eligible for membership of the 1st Respondent Union as an ordinary member, because Article 11.1 of the Union Constitution requires members to be currently employed by a County Government or affiliated body. While they acknowledge that the Petitioner served as a Member of the Nairobi City County Public Service Board between 2013 and 2017, and as a Member of the Nairobi City County Executive Committee from 2017 to 2022, they state that these positions predated the relevant period and do not constitute current employment. The Petitioner’s self-proclaimed experience working with County Government employees is also dismissed by the Respondents for the purpose of ascertaining her eligibility for membership. 7. The Respondents state that even if the Petitioner were treated as an eligible non-member candidate under Article 26.18 of the Union Constitution, which permits non-members to contest for the position of General Secretary under Section 31(4)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, she failed to meet the mandatory requirements for consideration as such, as stipulated in Article 26.18 of the Union Constitution. These include failing to submit the correct non-member nomination form NDC.33/1 21 days before the election; failing to provide proof of payment of the stipulated Kshs. 3,000,000/- non-refundable nomination fee; failing to meet the minimum educational and age qualifications, namely a Bachelor’s Degree in Law or an Upper Second Class Degree in any of the Social Sciences, and being at least 35 years of age; and not being endorsed by 1/5 of paid-up members across at least half the branches. It is stated that, as a stranger to the Union, the Petitioner was owed no notice obligation, could not have harboured a legitimate expectation, and is not entitled to a duty of procedural fairness, duties which are owed only to members and delegates through the contract between them and the Union, whose consideration is union dues. The Respondents emphasize that the Constitution of a trade union is a contract between the Union and its members; hence, third parties (non-members) cannot enforce its terms pursuant to the doctrine of privity of contract. No member of the 1st Respondent Union has complained about the rescheduling of the National Delegates Conference and National Elections; hence, according to the Respondents, the Petitioner is a busybody intent on meddling in the internal affairs of the 1st Respondent Union. 8. The Respondents acknowledge that Article 22 of the Constitution of Kenya allows "every person" to institute court proceedings alleging that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated, or infringed, but contend that the Petitioner has not demonstrated which specific Constitutional rights or freedoms of hers have been violated by the 1st Respondent, nor the manner in which such rights or freedoms have been infringed. 9. The Respondents aver that the Central Administration Board (CAB), the competent body mandated to set the date of the National Delegates Conference under the Union Constitution, lawfully and validly changed the date at its 14th January 2026 meeting under Articles 20, 26, and 48 of the Union Constitution, and properly notified members through the Circular dated 19th January 2026. They therefore deny the Petitioner’s claim that they acted unilaterally, arbitrarily, without justification and without public participation, emphasising that the reason for rescheduling the National Delegates Conference was legitimate and non-arbitrary. 10. To support their case, the Respondents rely on the letter dated 29th October 2025 from the Registrar of Trade Unions, responding to the Petitioner’s complaint and confirming that election dates are an internal union matter, not something the Union can dictate. The letter emphasised the Union’s associational autonomy under Article 41(4)(a) of the Constitution. 11. The Respondents deny that they created any legitimate expectation by issuing Circular No. 2, which set the original date of the National Delegates Conference as 27th February 2026, and argue that the Circular did not promise that the election date was fixed or unchangeable. Further, since the union only became aware of the Petitioner on 23rd January 2026, when it received her letter of intention to vie and her one-off payment of Kshs. 55,000/-, and the election schedule was amended on 14th January 2026 and communicated to members on 19th January 2026, before her expression of intent to vie, she cannot claim to have suffered any prejudice or to have developed any legitimate expectation. 12. The Respondents take the position that granting the Petitioner’s prayers will cause disproportionate harm to the Union and its legitimate membership, including financial losses, as well as logistical and human resource costs. This should be contrasted with the individual interest of one non-member applicant. They further complain that the Petitioner is engaged in forum shopping, as she lodged complaints with the Registrar of Trade Unions and filed a case in court on the same subject matter. They classify the Petition as an attempt by the Petitioner to buy time in which she intends to collect the signatures/endorsements she lacks from 1/5 of the paid-up members of the Union across at least half the branches. 13. In conclusion, the Respondents deny that they have violated any of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights and urge the Court to dismiss the Petition as an abuse of court process. Interested Party’s case 1. The Interested Party challenges the Petition for failure to exhaust the existing internal dispute resolution mechanisms provided for under the Union Constitution including writing to the Union on her concerns on the change of the date, and invokes the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies to aver that the Petition is premature and should be dismissed. 2. While they admit that they are aware that the 1st Respondent Union issued Circular No. 3 on 19th January 2026 referenced COGWU9K)1/NDC/2026 notifying branches of the Union of the rescheduling of the National Elections and the 33rd National Delegates Conference (NDC) from 27th February 2026 to 16th February 2026, they state that the 1st Respondent was lawfully mandated to reschedule the election if they so wished as trade unions enjoy autonomy in the management of their internal affairs, including the organization, scheduling, and rescheduling of elections and conferences under the Labour Relations Act 2007 and the Constitution of Kenya. They confirm that the issuance of Circular No. 3 was an internal administrative matter. 3. The Interested Party avers that it has no statutory mandate to direct or determine the specific dates on which a trade union must conduct its elections or meetings, provided the same are conducted in accordance with the law and the Union's Constitution. They clarify that Circular Ref. No. ML&APffU/AD/23 dated 25th September 2025 issued by the Interested Party was issued for administrative and coordination purposes only to promote orderly administration, compliance, and effective regulation, and was intended to limit, restrict, or interfere with the autonomy of trade unions in setting their internal schedules and timelines, or to impose mandatory election dates upon trade unions. 4. It is stated that the Petitioner did not submit evidence indicating that the rescheduling of the elections and the National Delegates Conference by the lst Respondent violated the Labour Relations Act, the Union Constitution, or any applicable regulations, or that the 1st Respondent acted illegally, with procedural impropriety, or abused their power, or that the rescheduling of the elections prejudiced or infringed upon the rights of any member of the Union. 5. The Interested Party contends that granting the orders sought will amount to unlawful interference with the internal governance of a duly registered trade union, and undermine the independence and autonomy guaranteed to trade unions under the law. DETERMINATION 1. Following directions by the court that it would determine the Petition through written submissions, the Petitioner and Respondents complied. Issues for determination 1. The Petitioner filed two sets of submissions, dated 11th February 2026 and 3rd July 2026 respectively, where she collectively identified the following issues for determination: * 1. Whether the Petitioner has locus standi to institute these proceedings notwithstanding her non-membership status. 2. Whether the Petitioner had a legitimate expectation to participate in the electoral process based on official circulars, statutory directives of the Registrar of Trade Unions, and representations made by the Respondents. 3. Whether the Respondents' alteration of election dates, unilateral amendment of the Union Constitution, imposition of punitive nomination fees, and formulation of electoral rules violated the Union Constitution, Election Rules, Registrar's directives, and constitutional standards of fairness, equality, and democracy. 4. Whether technical objections relating to affidavit serialization and marking of exhibits can override constitutional justice under Article 159 of the Constitution, the Mutunga Rules, and access to justice principles. 5. Whether the alteration of election dates interfered with the Petitioner's legitimate expectations. 6. Whether the Petitioner's right to fair administrative action was violated. 7. Whether the expungement of the Supporting Affidavit and its annexures renders the Petition incompetent and liable to be struck out. 8. Whether the Petition, standing alone, is competent under the Mutunga Rules. * + 1. Whether this Honourable Court ought to hear and determine the Petition on its merits and grant the reliefs sought. 2. Who should bear the costs of this Petition. 1. Conversely, in their submissions dated 8th June 2026, the Respondents identified the following issues for determination: * 1. Whether the 1st Respondent's change of the date of national elections from 27th February 2026 to 16th February 2026 is unlawful, unconstitutional, and defeatist of the Petitioner's legitimate expectation. 2. Whether the constitutional requirement of payment of Kshs. 3,000,0000/= by aspirants contesting for the position of the 1st Respondent's General Secretary is unconstitutional, punitive, and discriminatory. 3. Whether, if the answer to (i) and (ii) above is in the negative, the Petitioner herein is nevertheless entitled to the reliefs sought in the instant petition. 2. The court, having read the issues in the petition, finds that in its ruling of 13th February 2026 it determined all the issues raised by the parties and adopts its decision on the issues as follows- 1. Whether the Petitioner has locus standi to institute these proceedings notwithstanding her non-membership status. 2. Whether the 1st Respondent's change of the date of national elections from 27th February 2026 to 16th February 2026 is unlawful, unconstitutional, and defeatist of the Petitioner's legitimate expectation. 3. Whether the constitutional requirement of payment of Kshs. 3,000,0000/= by aspirants contesting for the position of the 1st Respondent's General Secretary is unconstitutional, punitive, and discriminatory. 4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief sought. Whether the Petitioner has locus standi to institute these proceedings notwithstanding her non-membership status. 1. The first issue to address is whether the petitioner had locus standi to file the petition. The Latin term ‘locus standi’ is defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Garner, 10th Edition, as 'place of standing’, meaning 'the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum'. The respondents argued that the petitioner was not a member of the union and therefore lacked locus standi to bring the petition against them. The court was guided by the union constitution, Article 26.18, which allows persons who are not members of the union, or even employed or engaged in the services of the county governments, associated companies, or agencies, to contest for the seat of General Secretary pursuant to section 31(4) of the Labour Relations Act, to wit-‘Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1)—(a) the general secretary of a trade union or the chief executive or association secretary of an employers’ organisation may be a person not engaged or employed in the sector concerned; (b) a person may be an official of more than one employer’s organisation; and (c) the Registrar may, on application by a trade union or employers’ organisation, permit any other office to be filled by a person not engaged or employed in the sector concerned.’’ The court found that the applicant, having expressed interest and having been invited to apply for the position by the respondent by being issued with nomination papers, of which she proceeded to apply and pay the nomination fee, had a stake in the elections, thus locus standi to sue the respondents as a potential candidate. Further, this was a constitutional petition, and the issue of locus standi is a non-issue, as the petitioner had a constitutional right to enforce her rights as given under Article 22 of the Constitution, to wit—‘(1) Every person has the right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened.’’ Further, Article 258(1) of the Constitution provides: “Every person has the right to institute court proceedings claiming that this Constitution has been contravened, or is threatened with contravention." The court upheld the decision cited by the petitioner of the Supreme Court in Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others [2013] eKLR, which held: "The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 has fundamentally transformed the concept of locus standi. The narrow traditional approach has been abandoned in favour of a broad and liberal approach that allows any person to approach the Court for the enforcement of the Constitution." In the upshot, the court holds that the petitioner had an unqualified right under Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya to bring the petition against the respondent. Whether the 1st Respondent's change of the date of national elections from 27th February 2026 to 16th February 2026 is unlawful, unconstitutional, and defeats the Petitioner's legitimate expectation. 1. The petitioner, vide letter dated 22nd January 2026, communicated her interest in the position of General Secretary to the 2nd respondent. At the time of expressing interest, the respondent had already changed the election date from 27th February 2026 to 16th February 2026, vide notice dated 19th January 2026. The respondent, vide letter dated 23rd January 2026, immediately informed the petitioner that the election date was 16th February 2026, not 27th February 2026 as indicated in her letter of 22nd January 2026. The petitioner requested the circular communicated via WhatsApp to a representative of the respondents. The petitioner nevertheless continued with her presentation of papers despite being aware of the change of election dates and even paid the nomination fee. The court finds that from the outset, vide the letter of interest dated 22nd January 2026, the petitioner was deemed to be operating on notice of 19th January 2026, issued before her expression of interest. The impugned notice complied with the 28-day notice. The complaint that short notice and inability to comply are due to inadequate notice is thus baseless. The petitioner did not express interest during the existence of the cancelled notice but under the current notice of 19th January 2026. She was not a member of the union. The claim of legitimate expectation was unfounded in the circumstances. The notice was compliant with the union constitution. The date was changed to accommodate Muslim faithful during the Ramadhan period by the authorised organ of the union, the Central Administrative Board (CAB), and the minutes of 14th January 2026 were produced as RSD-3. The court has no basis to intervene in the union's lawful activities (Article 41 of the Constitution). The court agreed with the union and the interested party that it could intervene only for non-compliance with the union constitution. This is consistent with the provision of Article 41 of the Constitution on labour rights, thus—‘’(41(4) Every trade union and every employers’ organisation has the right— (a) to determine its own administration, programmes and activities;’’ The court must then have a legitimate reason thus to interfere with the election program of the union, the same being a constitutionally protected activity of the union. The reasons must be related to a violation of the union's constitution, as that is the contract between the union and its members. The court found no probable cause to impugn the election process. Whether the constitutional requirement of payment of Kshs. 3,000,0000/= by aspirants contesting for the position of the 1st Respondent's General Secretary is unconstitutional, punitive, and discriminatory. 1. The applicant raised the issue of discrimination between members and non-members under Articles 26.18 and 26.19 of the union constitution. Regarding the changes to the union constitution, Article 26.18, the court found evidence that the amendments were endorsed by the Special National Delegates Conference held on 23rd November 2024. This was before the election cycle notice by the interested party, vide letter to all unions dated 25th September 2025 (RSD-11). The allegation that amendments were made in secret and arbitrarily is unfounded. The court found that the issue of discrimination cannot arise in the applicant's circumstances, as she is not a member. The applicant's position is not comparable to that of union members. She belongs to a special category by choice. The applicant told the court that she had already paid the KShs. 3 million nomination fee. The union constitution is a document of the members. The applicant was dishonest in her expression of interest; she stated she was a member. It then turned out she was not eligible, and she had to pay the KShs. 3 million nomination fee. The allegations that the changes were made to favour the 2nd respondent were unfounded. There was evidence that the constitution was amended on 23rd November 2024 by a special NDC of the union. The court found that, since the applicant approached the court alleging that the changes were meant to benefit the 2nd respondent and were secret and arbitrary, and having not proved so, there is no basis to impugn the elections of the 1st respondent. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought 1. The petitioner sought the following relief- 2. A declaration that the 1st Respondents' actions as notified in the Circular No. 3 referenced COGWU (K)/1/NDC/2026 dated 19th January 2026 violate Articles 27, 38, 41, and 47 of the Constitution. 3. A declaration that the Circular No. 3 referenced COGWU (K)/1/NDC/2026 dated 19th January 2026 changing the election date to 16th February 2026 is illegal, null, and void. 4. An Order of Certiorari to remove into this Honourable Court and quash the decision of the 1st Respondent re-scheduling and/or calling for the Quinquennial National Elections, 2026 and issuing a Notice for the 33rd National Delegates Conference re-scheduled to Monday, 19th February 2026, as notified in its Circular No. 3 referenced COGWU (K)/1 /NDC/2026 dated 19th January 2026. 5. An order of Mandamus compelling and/or directing the 1st Respondent to conduct elections in accordance with the Union Constitution, Election Rules, and Registrar's directives and give all the prospective candidates adequate notice and time to comply with the requirements for nominations. 6. A Declaration that Article xxx of the 1st Respondent's Constitution requiring any prospective candidate for a position in the National Office to pay a punitive nomination fees of Kshs. 3,000,000.00 is illegal, irregular and null and void and as such violate Articles 27, 38, 41, and 47 of the Constitution. 7. An Order of Prohibition permanently restraining the 1st Respondent, whether by itself, its agents, servants, representatives, or officers, from enforcing and or requiring any prospective candidate for a position in the National Office to pay a punitive nomination fee of Kshs. 3,000,000.00 as provided for under Article xxx of the 1st Respondent's Constitution. 8. An Order of Mandamus compelling the 2nd Respondent (the Registrar of Trade Unions), to amend the registered constitution of the 1st Respondent by deleting and/or cause to be removed the punitive requirement under Article xx requiring any prospective candidate for a position in the National Office to pay a punitive nomination fee of Kshs. 3,000,000.00. I return in the negative on all the above prayers, having held that there was no illegality in the change of dates or in the nomination fee of Ksh.3,000,000. The prayers are disallowed. 1. On the prayer for an order declaring that requiring personal details of members in the nomination forms violates the provisions of the Data Protection Act, 2019.- The petitioner did not submit on this issue. The respondent submitted that, in any event, the Petitioner herein is a non-member of the 1st Respondent Union and cannot dictate what is and what is not included or required under the Union's constitution. For, as this Honorable Court succinctly held in its ruling in this matter delivered on 13th February, 2026:- “...The union constitution is a document of the members...The allegations that the changes were made to favor the 2nd respondent were unfounded..." 2Further, we submit that the requirement of personal details of members in nomination forms is a genuine, proportionate, and reasonable requirement and hence the claim that it contravenes the Data Protection Act is misguided. The court found that the requirement of personal details in election nomination forms is a universal election requirement, not specific to unions. The court opined the claim was based on the right to privacy. Article 24 of the Constitution allows limitation of rights as follows-A right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall not be limited except by law, and then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including—(a)the nature of the right or fundamental freedom;(b)the importance of the purpose of the limitation;(c)the nature and extent of the limitation;(d)the need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and fundamental freedoms of others; and(e)the relation between the limitation and its purpose and whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.’ I find in the instant case that the personal details of the candidate in the nomination form for election, to the extent that it limits the right to privacy, are reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. There was no allegation of data in the said form being at risk of abuse. The claim is held as baseless. 2. In the upshot, the court held the petition to be without merit and the same is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent. 3. It is so Ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026. JEMIMAH KELI, JUDGE. IN THE PRESENCE OF: Court Assistant: Otieno Petitioner: Akoko h/b Odera Respondents: Oginga h/b Mwaura Interested Party: Absent