https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2171

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI** **CAUSE NO. E911 OF 2025** *(Before Hon. Lady Justice Agnes Kitiku Nzei)* **KENYA UNION OF ROAD CONTRACTORS** **AND CIVIL ENGINEERING WORKERS CLAIMANT** *VERSUS* **CENTRAL PLUMBING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ..RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The Claimant Trade Union sued the Respondent vide a Memorandum of Claim dated 15th September, 2025 and sought the following reliefs:- 2. *A permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from implementing the intended redundancy vide their letter dated* ***29th August, 2025****.* 3. *A declaration that the undated declaration notices of redundancy vide their* ***(sic)*** *letter dated 15th August, 2025 is illegal and unlawful.* 4. *Costs of the suit.* 5. *Any other relief the Court may deem fit and just to grant in the circumstances.* 6. The suit was contemporaneously filed with an urgent Notice of Motion dated 15th September, 2025 seeking Orders:- 7. *That the application be certified urgent and service be dispensed with, and the application be heard* ***ex-parte*** *in the first instance.* 8. *That pending hearing and determination of the application, the Court be pleased to issue an order stopping the Respondent from declaring all employees redundant.* 9. *That costs of the application be provided for.* 10. The application is based on the supporting affidavit of **Charles A. J. Osicho**, the Claimant’s National Secretary, sworn on 15th September, 2025. It is deponed in the said supporting affidavit that the Respondent came up with redundancy when the Claimant approached it for recognition, and that the redundancy is intended to defeat the threshold for recognition. 11. Among the documents filed in the suit by the Claimant is a single letter by the Respondent **dated 29th August, 2025** and addressed to **“ALL EMPLOYEES”,** informing them that some positions would be declared redundant **effective October 2025**. 12. The application was placed before me under a certificate of urgency on 23rd September, 2025. I certified the application as urgent, and directed that the same be served. 13. On hearing both parties on 25th September, 2025, I issued **an interim** **order** restraining the Respondent from declaring all its employees redundant. Prayers **(a)** and **(b)** in the Claimant’s application having been spent as aforestated, there remains **no substantive prayer for me to consider at this stage**, save for the prayer for costs of the application. 14. Despite the foregoing, the Respondent filed a replying affidavit of **Magdaline Adera Orony**, the Respondent’s Human Resource Manager, sworn on 13th November, 2025. It is deponed in the said replying affidavit:- 15. *that the suit herein as filed by the Claimant offends Section 73 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007 as parties herein are* ***currently*** *engaged in conciliation proceedings before the Ministry of Labour, which process has not been concluded.* 16. *that the claim is* ***premature*** *and offends the* ***doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies****, as this Court’s jurisdiction can only be invoked once the conciliation process has been concluded.* 17. *that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and to determine the suit at this stage, and that the Claimant has no* ***locus standi*** *to institute the claim herein as there exists no recognition agreement between the Claimant Union and the Respondent under* ***Section 53 and 53(3) of the Labour Relations Act****.* 18. *that the suit is fatally defective and an abuse of the Court’s process.* 19. The foregoing depositions are substantially restated in the Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 24th September, 2025, which forms part of the Respondent’s opposition to the Claimant’s aforestated application. 20. As already stated in this Ruling, the Claimant’s prayers **(a)** and **(b)** as set out in the application are already spent; and **nothing** remains of the application, save for the issue of costs of the application. The application **(prayers (a) and (b) thereof)**, is hereby marked as spent. 21. Turning to the issue of whether the suit herein is **pre-mature** as deponed and stated by the Respondent, the Claimant, **on 25th September, 2025**, informed the Court that it had reported the existence of a trade dispute **vide a letter dated 3rd September, 2025**; and that the Ministry of Labour had appointed a conciliator vide a letter dated **11th September, 2025**. The Court was further told that the Conciliation process had stalled due to the pendency of the suit herein. 22. Parties must first complete the conciliation process as provided for in **Part VIII (Dispute Resolution) of the Labour Relations Act**. The Court of Appeal stated as follows in the case of **Muthanji & Another – vs – Henry & 1756 Others (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2015) [2015] KECA 304 (KLR):-** **“38. . . . It is imperative that where a dispute resolution mechanism exists outside Courts, the same be exhausted before the jurisdiction of the Courts is invoked. Courts ought to be the fora of last resort and not the first port of call the moment a storm brews within churches, as is bound to happen. The exhaustion doctrine is a sound one and serves the purpose of ensuring that there is a postponement of Judicial consideration of matters to ensure that a party is first of all diligent in the protection of his own interest within the mechanisms in place for resolution outside courts. This accords with Article 159 of the Constitution which commands courts to encourage alternative means of dispute resolution.”** 1. In the upshot, and having considered written submissions filed on behalf of both parties:- 2. **The Claimant’s suit herein is hereby stayed for a period of three (3) months to enable parties herein to complete the already initiated and commenced conciliation process.** 3. **Status quo shall be maintained, in the meantime, in terms that the Respondent shall not declare its employees redundant pending hearing and determination of the dispute herein.** 4. **The matter shall be mentioned in Court on 23/11/2026 for appropriate orders and/or directions.** 5. **Each party shall bear its own costs of the spent application.** 6. Orders accordingly. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS** **24TH DAY OF JULY 2026** **AGNES KITIKU NZEI** **JUDGE** **ORDER** This Ruling has been delivered via Microsoft Teams Online Platform. A signed copy will be availed to each party upon payment of the applicable Court fees. **AGNES KITIKU NZEI** **JUDGE** Appearance: Mr. Osicho for the Claimant Miss Swaka for the Respondent