https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1828

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR** **RELATIONS COURT AT KERICHO** **CAUSE NO. E004 OF 2026** **BETWEEN** KENYA PLANTATION & AGRICULTURAL WORKERS UNION ............... CLAIMANT **VERSUS** SINENDET TEA MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY.................. RESPONDENT **RULING** 1. The Claimant filed an a application dated 27th January 2026, asking the Court to restrain the Respondent from victimizing its Employees on account of their association with the Claimant; compelling the Respondent to deduct and remit trade union dues; and compelling the Respondent to execute Recognition Agreement with the Claimant, and negotiate a Collective Bargaining Agreement. 2. The Statement of Claim seeks the same prayers substantively. 3. The application is founded on the affidavit of Deputy General Secretary Thomas Kipkemboi, sworn on 27th January 2026. 4. It is opposed through the affidavit of the Respondent’s Manager Hillary Ng’eno, sworn on 17th April 2026. 5. It was agreed by the Parties on 21st April 2026, that the application is determined on the strength of their affidavits and submissions. **The Court Finds**: - 1. The Court declined to grant protective interim orders on 11th April 2026, on the ground that no affidavit was sworn by any Employee of the Respondent, establishing that any Employee, had been threatened or victimized by the Respondent, on account of their association with the Claimant. 2. No such affidavit was subsequently sworn and filed, and there is no justification is granting a protective order in favour of the Employees, against victimization by the Respondent. 3. The other two orders sought, are also sought in the substantive prayers in the Claim. 4. The decision cited by the Claimant in arguing its application, **Kenya Long Distance Truck Drivers & Allied Workers Union v. Ms. Kyoga Hauliers Limited [Mombasa Cause No. 61 of 2013**], indicates that the orders were issued after full trial. 5. The affidavit sworn by Hillary Ng’eno, disputes that the Claimant has recruited a simple majority of the Respondent’s Unionisable Employees. 6. Some of the names in the submitted check-off lists, are said to belong to former Employees of the Respondent. 7. Other Employees are said to have denied signing check-off forms. 8. In fact, some Employees have sworn affidavits, denying that they signed check-off forms. 9. Logically, this denial makes it necessary to go on full trial. It would be illegal, to grant the orders sought, while some Employees alleged to be members of the Claimant, have sworn affidavits denying that they are members of the Claimant. The Parties must give evidence and establish their respective positions. The issues in dispute cannot be resolved through an interlocutory application, and through affidavit evidence. 10. If in any event the application is allowed, what happens to the Claim? **IT IS ORDERED**: - 1. **The application dated 27th January 2026 filed by the Claimant is declined.** 2. **No order on the costs.** Dated, signed and delivered electronically at Kericho, under Rule 68[5] of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2024, this 30th day of June 2026. James Rika Judge