https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1483

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR** **RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU** **CAUSE NUMBER E067 OF 2025** **BETWEEN** KENYA NATIONAL UNION OF MEDICAL LABORATORY OFFICERS [KNUMLO] ........................................ClAIMANT **VERSUS** 1. NAKURU COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2. NAKURU COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD ...................RESPONDENTS *Rika J* *Court Assistant: Emmanul Kiprono* *\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_* *Ooga & Company Advocates for the Claimant* *County Attorney for the Respondents* *\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_* **JUDGMENT** 1. The Claimant Union filed its Statement of Claim on 4th December 2025. 2. It avers that it has recruited 97 laboratory technicians, employed by the Respondents, as its members. 3. The number represent a simple majority. 4. The Claimant forwarded check-off forms to the Respondents, requiring the Respondents to deduct and remit trade union dues, from its members’ monthly salaries. 5. It also forwarded a model recognition agreement to the Respondents, for concurrence and execution. 6. The Respondents declined to implement check-off deductions, and to execute recognition agreement. 7. The dispute was escalated to the Ministry of Labour. Parties were heard on conciliation. The Conciliator recommended that the Respondents should effect deductions and sign recognition agreement. 8. The Respondents did not act on the recommendations, compelling the Claimant to file the Claim, seeking orders compelling the Respondents to effect deductions and sign recognition agreement. The Claimant prays for costs and any other suitable relief. 9. The Respondents filed a Statement of Response dated 18th November 2025. They deny that they were served with check-off forms, voluntarily signed by their Employees. There was no letter received by the Respondents from the Claimant, asking the Respondents to effect deductions and to execute recognition agreement. 10. It is not true that the Claimant has recruited a simple majority of the Respondents’ laboratory technicians, to warrant recognition. The Respondents agree that conciliation took place, but states that the same took place and was concluded outside the statutory timelines, under the Labour Relations Act. 11. The Parties’ representatives appeared in Court for mention on 28th January 2026, when they proposed to negotiate the dispute at their own level. 12. The Claim was scheduled for mention on 20th February 2026 and for hearing on 24th March 2026. The Respondents were absent on mention, but were represented by the County Attorney, Mr. Kihoro at the hearing . 13. Paul Nyakundi Moriasi, General- Secretary of the Claimant Union, gave evidence and rested the Claimant’s case on 24th March 2026. 14. He adopted his witness statement and documents [1-10] in his evidence-in-chief. He restated the contents of the Statement of Claim, as summarized above. 15. Cross-examined, he told the Court that he exhibited form ‘S,’ which can be used for recognition agreement. It is used for recruitment of members. It is not supposed to be signed by the General-Secretary. Redirected, he told the Court that the Claimant submitted the request for deduction and remittance of trade union dues, correctly. 16. The County Attorney closed Respondents’ case the same date, without calling any witness. 17. The issues are: whether the Claimant has satisfied the statutory requirements for recognition; secondly, should the Respondents deduct and remit trade union dues to the Claimant; and thirdly, who should bear the costs of the Claim? **The Court Finds**: - 1. The Claimant has exhibited membership application forms, listing 97 Employees of the Respondents as its members. 1. The Respondents have not filed any employment records disputing that the recruited members are their Employees, or disputing that they are unionisable. 2. There is no counterevidence disputing that the number 97, constitutes a simple majority. 3. There is evidence that the Claimant Union forwarded the membership application forms and model recognition agreement to the Respondents, requiring that the Respondents act on them. 4. The County Solicitor, Office of the County Attorney, Mr. Geoffrey Muchoki, wrote to the County Secretary and Head of Public Service Nakuru County, on 3rd April 2026, advising that he had reviewed the recognition agreement, and it was proper for execution. He requested the Secretary to convene a meeting between the Parties, for execution of the recognition agreement. 5. The Claimant has satisfied the requirements of Sections 48 and 54 of the Labour Relations Act. 6. The prayer for deduction and remittance of trade union dues in arrears, would require the concurrence of the Employees. The Claimant may consult its members on the subject. 7. There is nothing however, that stands in the way of this Claim. **IT IS ORDERED**: - 1. ***The Respondents shall execute recognition agreement with the Claimant Union, within 30 days of this Judgment.*** 2. ***The Respondents shall deduct and remit trade union dues to the Claimant, from the salaries of Claimant’s members, from the date of this Judgment.*** 3. ***No order on the costs.*** Dated, signed and delivered electronically at Nakuru, under Rule 68[5] of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2024, this 29th day of May 2026. James Rika Judge ******