[2014] KEELRC 539 (KLR)
The court found that the person purporting to represent the claimants, Mr. James Onkoba Tongi, failed to provide credentials proving he is a duly elected official of the trade union as required by Section 2 of the Labour Relations Act. Additionally, the claimants did not provide evidence of union membership or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 539 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Union of Hair and Beauty Salon Workers; Respondent: Style Industries Ltd.
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 578 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Employment and Labour Cause / Preliminary Objection Ruling
- Outcome
- suit struck out with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Trade Union Locus Standi, Proof of Union Membership, Conciliation Requirement
- 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 Union of Hair and Beauty Salon Workers
Applicant
Style Industries Ltd.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Cause / Preliminary Objection Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the person representing the claimants has locus standi under Section 2 of the Labour Relations Act.
- 2 Whether the claimants have met the requirements of Section 54(1), (6), and (7) of the Labour Relations Act regarding proof of membership and conciliation.
- 3 Whether the suit is premature for failure to refer the dispute to conciliation as required by law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the person purporting to represent the claimants, Mr. James Onkoba Tongi, failed to provide credentials proving he is a duly elected official of the trade union as required by Section 2 of the Labour Relations Act. Additionally, the claimants did not provide evidence of union membership or demonstrate that the dispute had been referred to conciliation as mandated by Section 54(6) and (7) of the Act. The absence of these prerequisites rendered the suit incompetent and premature. Consequently, the court struck out the suit with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
suit struck out with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The suit is struck out for being filed by an incompetent person.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO.578 OF 2013
KENYA UNION OF HAIR AND BEAUTY SALON WORKERS……….....……CLAIMANTS
VERSUS
STYLE INDUSTRIES LTD.………………………………………….……….RESPONDENT
RULING
The Respondent has raised preliminary objection that goes to an issue of locus. The Claimants, it is submitted are represented by a person who is unqualified in terms of Section 2 of the Labour Relations Act. It’s also submitted that the Claimants have not met the threshold of Section 54(1), 54(6) and (7) of the Labour Institution Act.
The Claimants has filed suit against the Respondent for remedies that can lie in terms of the Labour Relations Act. It is not lost on the Court that there is no exhibit showing proof of membership in terms of Section 54(6) and (7). Matter was not referred to conciliation in terms of part VIII of the Act. The suit is premature on that score.
As regards the locus of Mr. James Onkoba Tongi, the Court is inclined to agree that any official of the trade union may take up a cause on behalf of members. Official is defined in Section 2 of the Labour Relations Act as “a duly elected official of a trade union or employers’ organization including a member of the executive and a branch official.” No credentials have been presented by Mr. Tongi to show he is one of such officials as per the law.
In the premises I find that the suit is filed by an incompetent person and I hereby strike it out with costs of the Respondent.
Orders accordingly.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 1st day of April 2014
NZIOKI WA MAKAU
JUDGE