https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1616

Mbaabu & another v Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) & another (Constitutional Petition E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 1616 (KLR) (12 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1616 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Meru Constitutional Petition E001 of 2026 SC Rutto, J June 12, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 22,23,27,41,47,48,50 AND 159 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 34 OF THE LEABOUR REALTIONS ACT, 2007 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ENFORCEMENT AND INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLES 258,259 AND 260 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE UNLAWFUL, VIOLENT AND INCOMPLETE KENYA NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS (KNUT) NYAMBENE BRANCH ELECTIONS HELD ON 17TH JANUARY 2026 AT IGEMBE CENTRAL VOCATIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE Between Edwin Muthomi Mbaabu 1st Petitioner Vincent Mukungi 2nd Petitioner and Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) 1st Respondent Registrar of Trade Unions 2nd Respondent Judgment 1.The Petitioners instituted the present Petition dated 19th January 2026 seeking, among other reliefs, declarations that the elections of the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT), Nyambene Branch, conducted on 17th January 2026 were unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void. The Petition is supported by the Affidavit of the 1st Petitioner, Edwin Muthomi Mbaabu, sworn on the same date. 2.Mr. Mbaabu deposes that he has sworn the Affidavit on his own behalf and on behalf of the 2nd Petitioner. He states that they are both teachers employed by the Teachers Service Commission and are duly registered and paid-up members of KNUT under the Nyambene Branch. 3.He avers that on 17th January 2026, the Respondents supervised and conducted elections for all elective positions of the KNUT Nyambene Branch at Igembe Central Vocational Training Institute. 4.According to Mr. Mbaabu, he and other members of the Union within the Nyambene Branch attended the elections in good faith, with the legitimate expectation that the exercise would be conducted in a free, fair, transparent, peaceful and lawful manner. 5.Mr. Mbaabu contends that, contrary to those expectations, the electoral process was, from its inception, marred by gross administrative incompetence, inadequate preparedness and fundamental procedural defects. These included the absence of a verified electoral area register, reliance on a single consolidated register and significant logistical shortcomings. 6.He further avers that the ballot papers issued at the polling station did not correspond with the counterfoils, thereby compromising accountability of the electoral materials and undermining the minimum safeguards necessary to ensure transparency, verifiability and integrity of the process. 7.Mr. Mbaabu deposes that, as a direct consequence of the Respondents’ negligence, omissions and/or deliberate actions, he and other eligible members were unable to cast their votes despite being physically present, duly registered and willing to participate in the elections. 8.He states that at approximately 3.00 p.m., the already fragile and poorly managed process descended into violence, chaos and lawlessness. According to him, ballot boxes were destroyed, ballot papers were torn and scattered, and an atmosphere of fear, panic and intimidation engulfed the polling centre. 9.Mr. Mbaabu further avers that the officials present, including officers of the 1st Respondent, representatives from the Labour Office and the deployed security personnel, failed, neglected or refused to restore order, secure the electoral materials or guarantee the safety of the teachers in attendance. He contends that the electoral environment became unsafe, hostile and wholly inconsistent with the constitutional standards of a fair, peaceful and credible election envisaged under Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution, Section 34 of the Labour Relations Act and the KNUT Constitution. He adds that these incidents of hostility were reported at Maua Police Station. 10.He further states that despite the fact that a majority of eligible members were still lawfully queued to vote, the Respondents abruptly, arbitrarily and unlawfully halted the voting process. 11.According to Mr. Mbaabu, the decision to stop the voting exercise was made without any written communication of reasons, stakeholder consultation, reference to the KNUT Constitution, or invocation of any contingency measures, supplementary polling arrangements or alternative voting mechanisms. 12.It is his deposition that he and other members were compelled to flee the venue in order to safeguard their safety and lives, thereby suffering intimidation, fear and psychological distress attributable to the Respondents’ failure to discharge their constitutional, statutory and fiduciary obligations. 13.He further avers that, as a result of the violence, administrative breakdown and unlawful suspension of the voting process, more than half of the eligible members were effectively disenfranchised and denied the enjoyment of their constitutional and trade union rights. 14.In his view, the electoral process was not merely irregular but fundamentally incomplete, irreparably compromised, incapable of verification and devoid of legitimacy, democratic credibility and constitutional validity. 15.It is against this background that the Petitioners seek the following reliefs:i.A declaration that the KNUT Nyambene Branch elections held on 17th January 2026 were unconstitutional, null and void.ii.A declaration that any results arising therefrom are invalid and incapable of conferring a lawful mandate.iii.A mandatory order restraining the Respondents from recognizing, gazetting or wearing in any officials purportedly elected from the said process.iv.A mandatory order directing the conduct of fresh KNUT Nyambene Branch elections in strict compliance with the Constitution, the Labour Relations Act and the KNUT Constitution under independent supervision. 16.The 1st Respondent opposed the Petition through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 10th April 2026 by Henry Collins Oyuu. 17.Mr. Oyuu, who describes himself as the Secretary General of the 1st Respondent, deposes that the KNUT Nyambene Branch elections were conducted lawfully, constitutionally and in strict compliance with Article XX(B) of the KNUT Constitution, 2022. 18.He avers that the election materials, including ballot books, ballot papers and ballot boxes, together with the election officials and personnel involved in the exercise, were properly deployed. According to him, the voting, tallying and counting processes were free, fair and transparent. He further contends that any incidents depicted in the Petitioners’ exhibits occurred after the conclusion of voting and did not in any way compromise the integrity of the election. 19.Mr. Oyuu deposes that the voting exercise commenced at 8.00 a.m. and that by 12.00 noon the majority of members had cast their votes. Thereafter, the process awaited the prescribed tallying time of 5.00 p.m. 20.He further states that at approximately 4.00 p.m., the Petitioners arrived at the polling station accompanied by persons who were not registered members of the Nyambene Branch. Upon being informed that their names did not appear in the voters’ register, the said individuals allegedly became abusive, violent and disruptive. 21.According to Mr. Oyuu, the Petitioners and their companions attempted to interfere with the electoral process and incite members present. However, election officials, candidates and police officers intervened and restored order. 22.He avers that, following the disturbance and in order to safeguard the integrity of the process, the election officials, candidates, agents and the Returning Labour Officer agreed to relocate to a secure classroom to proceed with the tallying exercise. He maintains that this decision was reached by all legitimate stakeholders present. 23.Mr. Oyuu further contends that the Petitioners and the persons accompanying them unlawfully seized unused ballot books, ballot papers and ballot boxes, and subsequently relied on those materials to advance allegations of electoral irregularities. In his view, unused election materials cannot lawfully form the basis of allegations of electoral malpractice or unfairness. 24.He avers that the Petitioners failed to vote because they insisted on the participation of non-registered persons in the voting process, contrary to the KNUT Constitution and established electoral procedures. Consequently, he contends that they are solely responsible for their failure to vote. 25.Mr. Oyuu further deposes that upon the successful conclusion of the elections on 17th January 2026, the names of the successful candidates were entered in Form G and duly submitted to the Registrar of Trade Unions. He adds that the Registrar has since confirmed and accepted the said candidates as the duly elected officials of the KNUT Nyambene Branch. 26.He further states that all candidates were represented by agents and/or observers who participated in the voting, counting and verification processes. According to him, all stages of the election were conducted by duly authorized union officials and election officers in accordance with the Union Constitution. He avers that this explains why none of the agents or observers has lodged any complaint regarding the conduct of the elections. 27.Mr. Oyuu also avers that, upon conclusion of the elections, the agents and observers signed a Confirmation Deed affirming that the elections were free, fair, credible and transparent, and reflected the will of the electorate of the Nyambene Branch. He adds that all eligible members were duly accredited, their names appeared in the voter register, and the voting process was supervised by duly appointed officials. In his view, this also explains why unsuccessful candidates did not challenge the election results. 28.He acknowledges that there were minor disruptions during the exercise but maintains that they were promptly addressed by election officials and police officers and did not affect either the integrity or the outcome of the elections. 29.Mr. Oyuu contends that the incident complained of affected only an insignificant fraction of the electorate, who were themselves responsible for the circumstances leading to their exclusion. He avers that the Nyambene Branch comprises over 4,000 members and argues that the votes of between two and ten members are de minimis. 30.He further deposes, on the advice of counsel, that minor irregularities incapable of affecting the outcome of an election are immaterial and do not vitiate the electoral process. He adds that no objections were raised by candidates’ agents during the tallying process and that all agents signed off on the final tally. He further maintains that even if the Petitioners had voted, the outcome of the election would have remained unchanged. According to him, the Petitioners have not demonstrated, by any arithmetic analysis, how their exclusion could have altered the declared results. 31.Mr. Oyuu further avers, on the advice of counsel, that there is a strong public interest in preserving the validity of elections where a proper process has been followed. In his view, nullifying the election on account of the exclusion of a few voters would cause unnecessary disruption, undermine the will of the majority who voted without incident and create uncertainty in the governance of the Union. 32.He further challenges the evidentiary value of OB Report No. OB55/18/01/2026 relied upon by the Petitioners, contending that no extract of the report has been produced to enable the Court ascertain the nature of the complaint allegedly lodged at Maua Police Station. He further states that no evidence has been tendered to demonstrate that any criminal complaint or investigation was undertaken. 33.Mr. Oyuu further deposes, on the advice of counsel, that the declarations sought by the Petitioners, including the nullification of the election and the conduct of fresh elections, are grave remedies that ought only to be granted where the public interest so demands. He contends that the Petitioners have failed to meet that threshold. He further posits that the Petition has been brought solely in the Petitioners’ personal capacities and not on behalf of other aggrieved members of the Nyambene Branch, as no authority, list of affected members or other evidence of wider dissatisfaction has been produced. 34.Accordingly, he maintains that the Petition discloses no valid cause of action and that the alleged denial of two votes, even if established, is not material to the validity of the election. 35.The 2nd Respondent opposed the Petition through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 23rd February 2026 by Ann Kanake, the Acting Registrar of Trade Unions. 36.Ms. Kanake avers that, based on the information available to the 2nd Respondent, the KNUT Nyambene Branch elections were conducted in accordance with both the Union Constitution and the Labour Relations Act. 37.She further states that one David Ochieng, the County Labour Officer, oversaw and assessed the election process and subsequently submitted a report to the 2nd Respondent. Upon satisfying itself that all statutory requirements had been met, the 2nd Respondent proceeded to register the elected officials of the Nyambene Branch. 38.According to Ms. Kanake, all actions undertaken by the 2nd Respondent were lawful, procedural and within the confines of its statutory mandate. She contends that the Petitioners have failed to demonstrate any wrongdoing on the part of the 2nd Respondent, warranting judicial intervention. 39.In response to the Respondents’ affidavits, Mr. Mbaabu swore a Further Affidavit on 16th May 2026. He deposes that the 1st Respondent effectively admitted that the election was neither free nor fair by asserting that tallying commenced at approximately 4.00 p.m., notwithstanding that the official tallying time was scheduled for 5.00 p.m. 40.Mr. Mbaabu further denies the allegation that he and the Petitioners caused any disruption, describing the accusation as false, unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence. 41.He avers that they did not arrive at the polling station at 4.00 p.m. and maintains that, at the time the disturbances arose, they had already taken their place in the voting queue and were subsequently prevented from participating in the process by security personnel. 42.According to Mr. Mbaabu, the chaos witnessed during the election was orchestrated. He questions how individuals armed with clubs could roam freely within the polling station in the presence of police officers without intervention. He further contends that no investigations have been undertaken in respect of the incident despite the fact that the officers providing security were drawn from Maua Police Station. 43.He further avers that the handling and custody of electoral materials was irregular, opaque and susceptible to manipulation, and that the Respondents have failed to provide a credible audit trail. He states that when the disturbances began, he moved away from the polling area but remained within sight of the polling tent and was able to record videos of the events unfolding. He maintains that electoral materials were interfered with during the chaos, thereby undermining the independence, impartiality and credibility of the election. 44.Mr. Mbaabu further deposes, on the advice of counsel, that the right to participate in an election is fundamental, personal and inalienable and cannot be trivialized on the basis of numerical insignificance. He contends that an election tainted by illegality remains invalid regardless of whether the impugned conduct altered the outcome. 45.He also faults the 2nd Respondent’s Replying Affidavit for failing to give a complete and accurate account of the events, particularly the allegations that the election process was marred by chaos, that qualified voters were excluded from participating, and that tallying commenced before the prescribed time. 46.Mr. Mbaabu further contends that the 2nd Respondent acted in violation of the principles of natural justice, procedural fairness and legitimate expectation. According to him, the impugned actions were undertaken arbitrarily and capriciously, thereby occasioning prejudice, injustice and irreparable harm to the Petitioners. 47.He further avers that the 2nd Respondent has failed to demonstrate that due process was followed or that the elections were conducted in a fair, impartial and transparent manner. 48.Mr. Mbaabu further contends that the 2nd Respondent has remained silent on the critical procedural lapses and substantive irregularities raised in the Petition and that such silence amounts to an admission by conduct. Submissions 49.The Petition was canvassed by way of written submissions. On the Petitioner’s part, it is submitted that the impugned elections were marred by violence, procedural irregularities, administrative collapse, disenfranchisement of members, opacity in tallying and violation of constitutional and statutory safeguards governing democratic and trade union elections. 50.It is the Petitioners’ submission that the Respondents’ conduct in organizing, supervising and validating the impugned elections constituted administrative action within the meaning of Article 47 of the Constitution and was therefore amenable to constitutional scrutiny. 51.The Petitioners have further submitted that a substantial number of the members of KNUT who had lawfully presented themselves to vote were denied the opportunity to participate after the process descended into chaos. In the same vein, the Petitioners submit that the electoral process became fundamentally compromised and incapable of meeting the constitutional threshold contemplated under Article 41. 52.It is the Petitioners' position that the same constitutional philosophy that applies in national elections applies with equal force to trade union elections and that the process itself must remain transparent, participatory, verifiable and accountable. In the same breath, the Petitioners submit that the disenfranchisement complained herein constituted a direct assault on their constitutional entitlement to participate in the democratic governance structures of the union. 53.According to the Petitioners, disenfranchisement of even a single eligible voter through unlawful conduct is sufficient to trigger judicial scrutiny where the process becomes constitutionally infirm. In the Petitioners’ view, the issue before the court is not merely the numerical outcome of the elections but whether the process itself was lawful, credible, verifiable and constitutionally compliant. 54.The Petitioners further submit that the process lost credibility and ceased to meet the threshold of democratic elections contemplated under the Labour Relations Act. 55.The Petitioners have further urged the Court not to adopt the materiality test advanced by the 1st Respondent, arguing that the constitutional rights do not diminish in importance merely because the number of persons affected appears small. 56.On its part, the 1st Respondent has submitted that the current Petition was filed as an ordinary Constitutional Petition and does not comply with the Employment & Labour Relations Court (Trade Union Election Disputes) Procedure and Practice Directions, 2025. Referencing the cases of Bichang'a & 2 others v Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) & 4 others (Petition E007 of 2026 & Trade Union Election Petition E008 & E009 of 2026 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELRC 135 (KLR) (28 January 2026) (Ruling) and Sakwa v Kenya National Private Security Workers Union & 3 others (Petition E010 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 632 (KLR) (3 March 2026) (Ruling), the 1st Respondent has posited that the Petition is procedurally defective and incompetent. To this end, the 1st Respondent has urged the Court to strike out the Petition in limine for want of proper procedure. 57.The 1st Respondent has further submitted that the prayers for declaration of unconstitutionality, nullification of election results, and the conduct of fresh elections are very grave and must be done in the public interest. In the 1st Respondent’s view, the Petitioners’ allegations do not meet the public interest threshold. 58.Placing reliance on the case of Raila Odinga & Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & Others (2022), Presidential Election Petition E005 of 2022, it is submitted by the 1st Respondent that the Petitioners must show credible evidence of fraud or error that materially affects the outcome. 59.The 1st Respondent has further submitted that the Petitioners cannot allege denial of rights under Articles 38 and 41 since they acknowledged being members and turning up to vote. 60.It is the 1st Respondent’s position that the Petitioners have failed to present the election results, the register, the votes for and against candidates, save to say that there was violence. In its view, the violence must have affected elections, and the Petitioners cannot allege and speculate. 61.The 1st Respondent has further submitted that Article 47 of the Constitution has no place in a petition challenging a union election. It is submitted that the proper remedy for union election grievances lies in labour law procedures, not in constitutional petitioning. In its view, this is not an administrative decision and accordingly, no violation of Article 47 is made out. 62.The 1st Respondent has further submitted that in the present case, the union's election committee followed the timeline and roll requirements in the union's constitution. It is the 1st Respondent’s position that the Petitioners' quarrel with the end time of voting (5:00 pm) is not a constitutional issue but an internal arrangement by consensus. It is further submitted that the closure of the poll is one that was well-founded in safeguarding the electoral process and the integrity and was arrived at through the consensus of concerned parties, such as the candidates. 63.According to the 1st Respondent, human errors and administrative lapses occasioned by human imperfection are not sufficient to nullify an election. The 1st Respondent posits that irregularities per se cannot invalidate an election, unless it is proved that such irregularities either affected the outcome of the election, or materially compromised the electoral process. 64.On the 2nd Respondent’s part, it is posited that it merely exercised its legal mandate in law to effect office holder changes following the report submitted by the County Labour Officer on the impugned election. 65.The 2nd Respondent has further posited that it is not a property party to this suit because its mandate is limited to registration of the new office holders and not overseeing the elections altogether. 66.It is further submitted that no aggrievance was raised with the 2nd Respondent, under Section 28 of the Labour Relations Act, by the Petitioners or any other parties, prior to the instant suit with respect to the said registration. 67.Citing the decision in Aloise A. Otiende v Boniface M. Munyao, the 2nd Respondent submitted that it bears no statutory duty to supervise, conduct, manage, or guarantee the propriety, fairness, or procedural regularity of trade union elections. It maintained that its mandate is limited to the registration of duly submitted election outcomes in accordance with the applicable legal framework, and where necessary, intervention may only arise upon the existence of a formal dispute or complaint properly placed before it. 68.The 2nd Respondent maintained that it cannot be held liable for, or blamed in respect of, any alleged irregularities, improprieties, or acts of rigging arising from an electoral process which it neither planned, administered, controlled, nor conducted. In the same vein, the 2nd Respondent posited that no violation of constitutional or statutory rights can properly be attributed to it on the basis of allegations stemming from an election process outside its direct control or responsibility. Analysis and Determination 69.The Court, having considered the pleadings by all parties, the evidence placed on record, and the rival submissions, distills the following issues for determination:-a.Whether the present Petition is competently before the Court; andb.Depending on (a), whether the Petition is merited. Competence of the Petition 70.The 1st Respondent contends that the present Petition is procedurally defective and incompetent, as it was filed as an ordinary Constitutional Petition and not in compliance with the Employment & Labour Relations Court (Trade Union Election Disputes) Procedure and Practice Directions, 2025. 71.In essence, the 1st Respondent’s contention concerns the procedural form through which the present matter was commenced rather than the substantive issues placed before the Court. 72.In light of the 1st Respondent’s contention, it is worth pointing out that Section 20(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act enjoins this Court to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. 73.More importantly, Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution is explicit that courts are to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. 74.It is this Court’s view that the manner adopted by the Petitioners in instituting these proceedings has not occasioned any prejudice to the Respondents, nor does it affect the substantive merits of the dispute before the Court. 75.Consequently, striking out or dismissing the Petition solely on account of the procedural form in which it was presented rather than its substance would not only occasion injustice but would also be inconsistent with the letter and spirit of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. 76.Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the Petition is properly before it and, consequently, finds the objection raised by the 1st Respondent to be without merit. Merit in the Petition 77.It is the case of the Petitioners that the KNUT Nyambene Branch elections conducted on 17th January 2026 were neither free, fair, peaceful, transparent, nor credible. According to them, at about 3.00 p.m., the electoral process descended into chaos, violence, disorder and lawlessness, resulting in the abrupt cessation of voting while eligible members were still queued awaiting an opportunity to cast their ballots. 78.The Petitioners further assert that more than half of the eligible voters within the branch were thereby disenfranchised and denied the enjoyment of their democratic, constitutional and trade union rights. 79.The 1st Respondent, on its part, has acknowledged that the elections were disrupted by incidents of violence at about 4.00 p.m. However, it attributes the disruption to the Petitioners and other individuals who allegedly accompanied them to the polling station despite not being registered members of the KNUT Nyambene Branch. The 1st Respondent’s version of events is that upon being informed that their names did not appear in the voters’ register, the said individuals became abusive, disruptive and violent. 80.It is further averred by the 1st Respondent that, in order to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process, the candidates, agents and the Returning Labour Officer agreed to relocate to a secure classroom to undertake the tallying exercise. The 1st Respondent maintains that this decision was reached by consensus among all legitimate stakeholders present. 81.What emerges from the accounts presented by both the Petitioners and the 1st Respondent is that the electoral process did not conclude smoothly and that the voting exercise was brought to an end before the prescribed tallying time of 5.00 p.m. 82.The central question for determination, therefore, is whether the disruption occasioned by the violence and the premature closure of the voting exercise materially affected the outcome of the KNUT Nyambene Branch elections so as to warrant nullification of the entire electoral process. 83.At the outset, it is noteworthy that the Petitioners did not join the County Labour Officer, who served as the Returning Officer in the impugned elections, as a party to these proceedings. This omission is significant. Why do I say so? As the officer charged with the conduct and supervision of the elections, the Returning Officer would have been best placed to provide crucial information regarding, inter alia, the exact time the voting exercise was closed, the voter turnout at the time, the number of votes cast, and the total number of registered voters within the branch. Such evidence would have greatly assisted the Court in determining whether the premature closure of voting disenfranchised a substantial number of members and, if so, whether such disenfranchisement was of a magnitude capable of affecting the outcome of the election as to warrant a nullification of the elections. 84.The Petitioners have consistently maintained that more than half of the eligible members of the KNUT Nyambene Branch were denied an opportunity to vote as a consequence of the violence and the closure of the polling exercise. Having asserted as much, the burden rested upon them to place before the Court cogent evidence demonstrating not only the extent of the alleged disenfranchisement but also that the premature closure of voting materially altered the outcome of the elections. 85.Such evidence could have been availed through records showing the number of votes cast at the time voting ceased, as against the total number of registered voters. This further underscores the importance of joining the Returning Officer to these proceedings. 86.Indeed, it should be appreciated that the Registrar of Trade Unions only becomes involved at the final stage of the process, namely, the registration of elected officials, and would not ordinarily be in possession of the primary electoral data necessary for such an inquiry. 87.Further, apart from the assertions made by the Petitioners themselves, no affidavits or other evidence were presented by other members of the KNUT Nyambene Branch to corroborate the claim that they were unable to vote as a result of the violence or the closure of the voting exercise before the prescribed time. 88.Recent jurisprudence that has emerged in relation to the national election disputes is that an election may be invalidated where it is conducted in a manner inconsistent with the constitutional principles governing elections or where proven irregularities and illegalities are of such a nature and magnitude as to affect the result. Not every irregularity, however, will justify nullification. Only those irregularities that are shown to be material, substantial and consequential either to the integrity of the process or to the electoral outcome will meet the threshold for invalidation. 89.It has also been held that where malpractices are established and are of such gravity as to fundamentally compromise the integrity of the electoral process, the legitimacy of the resulting outcome is equally impeached. 90.In the present case, however, the Petitioners did not place before the Court sufficient evidence to demonstrate that either the violence witnessed at the polling station or the premature closure of the voting exercise materially affected the outcome of the KNUT Nyambene Branch elections held on 17th January 2026. 91.Upon evaluation of the evidentiary material on record, the Court is not persuaded that the incidents of violence and the early cessation of the voting exercise had such a substantial impact on the electoral process as to alter the overall results of the elections or justify the nullification of the exercise. 92.Consequently, while the Court finds that the Petitioners may have been denied an opportunity to participate in the impugned branch elections, thereby infringing their rights under Article 41(2)(c) of the Constitution and section 4(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, the remedy sought must nevertheless be proportionate to the nature and extent of the violation established. 93.In the circumstances of this case, nullification of the entire electoral process would be a disproportionate remedy, particularly in the absence of any indication that either candidate in the said election has challenged the outcome. 94.The Court is therefore not persuaded that the irregularities complained of attained the threshold necessary to invalidate the entire electoral exercise. 95.In the final analysis, the Court finds that the Petitioners have failed to discharge the burden of proving, to the requisite standard, that sufficient grounds exist to warrant the nullification of the KNUT Nyambene Branch elections held on 17th January 2026. 96.Accordingly, the Petition dated 19th January 2026 is hereby dismissed. Given the nature of the dispute and the relationship between the Petitioners and the 1st Respondent, each party shall bear its own costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYERI THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2026………………………………STELLA RUTTOJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Kinyua for the PetitionersMr. Ajak Jok for the 1st RespondentMs. Kibiti for the 2nd RespondentNdati Court AssistantOrderIn view of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court had been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes.