https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2257
The court dismissed the application because the alleged wage agreement raised unresolved disputes on authority, compliance with the recognition agreement, and the role of a third-party service provider, making the matter unsuitable for determination through a miscellaneous application and affidavit evidence alone.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELRC 2257 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant Union: Kenya Building, Construction, Timber & Furniture Employees; Respondent: China Road & Bridge Cooperation
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E026 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Adopt Agreement as Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed without prejudice to filing a fresh claim.
- Judges
- ["J Rika"]
- Legal Topics
- Recognition Agreement, Collective Bargaining, Enforcement of Settlement Agreement, Capacity to Contract, Necessary Party, Procedural Propriety
- 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
Kenya Building, Construction, Timber & Furniture Employees
Applicant Union
China Road & Bridge Cooperation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Adopt Agreement as Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court could adopt the alleged agreement as a judgment on affidavit evidence alone.
- 2 Whether the signatory from the respondent side had capacity to negotiate and bind the respondent.
- 3 Whether the agreement was made in accordance with the parties' recognition agreement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court dismissed the application because the alleged wage agreement raised unresolved disputes on authority, compliance with the recognition agreement, and the role of a third-party service provider, making the matter unsuitable for determination through a miscellaneous application and affidavit evidence alone.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed without prejudice to filing a fresh claim.
Orders
- The application is dismissed, without prejudice to the applicant's initiation of a fresh claim.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR** **RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU** **MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO E026 OF 2026** **BETWEEN** KENYA BUILDING, COSNTRUCTION, 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 identified as China Road & Bridge Cooperation. The commonly known Chinese outfit 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 affidavit 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 Office, 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. 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 affidavit 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’ benefits. 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’ affidavits and submissions on record. **The Court Finds**: - 1. The Miscellaneous Application filed by the Union, raises issues which cannot be determined on affidavit evidence alone. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. The Claimant appears to have engaged Ace Protex Services, a human resource consultancy firm 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. 5. Ace Protex Services is a stranger to the recognition agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent. 6. 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. 7. 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**: - 1. **The application is dismissed, without prejudice to the Applicant’s initiation of a fresh Claim.** 2. **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 