https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1330

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NYERI** **ELRC PETITION NO. E006 OF 2026** **IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 2, 3, 10, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 36, 38(1), 41, 47, 50, 159, 162(2)(a), 258 AND 259 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLES 27, 36, 38(1), 41 AND 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF RULES 23 AND 24 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES, 2013** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 4, 5, 6 AND 7 OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ACT, 2015** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 12 OF THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT ACT, 2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 30, 34 AND 35 OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 2007** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF THE KENYA UNION OF POST-PRIMARY EDUCATION TEACHERS (KUPPET) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE DEFIANCE OF COURT ORDERS AND CONTEMPT OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY** **BETWEEN** **ROBERT MIANO………………………………………….1ST PETITIONER** **PAUL MAINA……………………………………………...2ND PETITIONER** **KARANJA DANIEL……………………...………………..3RD PETITIONER** **GALDYS CHERUIYOT…………………………………...4TH PETITIONER** **BENINTA KAMAU………………………………………..5TH PETITIONER** **VERSUS** **KENYA UNION OF POST-PRIMARY** **EDUCATION TEACHERS (KUPPET)………………....1ST RESPONDENT** **THE SECRETARY GENERAL-KUPPET……………...2ND RESPONDENT** **THE NATIONAL ELECTIONS BOARD-KUPPET…...3RD RESPONDENT** **THE COUNTY LABOUR OFFICER,** **LAIKIPIA COUNTY……………………………………..4TH RESPONDENT** **REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS…………………….5TH RESPONDENT** **AND** **EXECUTIVE SECRETARY…………………….1ST INTERESTED PARTY** **SECONDARY SECRETARY LAIKIPIA……...2ND INTERESTED PARTY** **1ST ASSISTANT SECRETARY,** **GENDER KUPPET, LAIKIPIA………………..3RD INTERESTED PARTY** **GENER SECRETARY KUPPET LAIKIPIA.….4TH INTERESTED PARTY** **TERTIARY SECRETARY** **KUPPET LAIKIPIA……………………………..5TH INTERESTED PARTY** **JUDGMENT** 1. The five (5) Petitioners instituted the present Petition dated 5th March 2026 seeking, *inter alia*, declarations that the Kenya Union of Post-Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET) Laikipia County Branch elections conducted on 28th February 2026 were unconstitutional, unlawful, null, and void. The Petition is supported by the Affidavit of the 1st Petitioner, **Robert Miano**, sworn on even date. Mr. Miano deposes that he has sworn the affidavit on his own behalf and on behalf of the other Petitioners. 2. The Petitioners aver that they are duly registered teachers employed by the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) and bona fide members of KUPPET. 3. It is averred that the 1st Petitioner, **Robert Miano**, contested for the position of Executive Secretary in the KUPPET Laikipia County Branch elections held on 28th February 2026, having fulfilled all nomination prerequisites, including the payment of requisite fees and adherence to eligibility criteria enshrined in the KUPPET Constitution and election guidelines. 4. It is also averred that the 3rd Petitioner, **Karanja Daniel**, contested for the position of Secondary Secretary in the KUPPET Laikipia County Branch elections held on 28th February 2026, having fulfilled all nomination prerequisites, including the payment of requisite fees and adherence to eligibility criteria enshrined in the KUPPET Constitution and election guidelines. 5. Further, that the 4th Petitioner, **Gladys Cheruiyot**, aspired to contest the position of Gender Secretary in the KUPPET Laikipia County Branch elections held on 28th February 2026, having fulfilled all nomination prerequisites, including the payment of requisite fees and adherence to eligibility criteria enshrined in the KUPPET Constitution and election guidelines. 6. It is also averred that the 5th Petitioner, **Beninta Kamau,** aspired to contest the position of 1st Assistant Secretary Gender in the KUPPET Laikipia County Branch elections held on 28th February 2026, having fulfilled all nomination prerequisites, including the payment of requisite fees and adherence to eligibility criteria enshrined in the KUPPET Constitution and election guidelines. 7. The Petitioners contend that their constitutional entitlements to participate in union governance have been flagrantly violated, and they seek redress to restore the sanctity of democratic processes within the union. 8. The Petitioners aver that the 1st Respondent issued an election timetable scheduling the KUPPET Laikipia County Branch elections for 28th February 2026, encompassing various leadership positions critical to the representation and welfare of post-primary teachers in the county. 9. The Petitioners contend that the elections were conducted amid a backdrop of recurring electoral controversies within KUPPET branches nationwide, characterized by voter exclusion, register manipulation, and procedural opacity. They add that the Laikipia process was no exception and was tainted by multiple layers of irregularity that vitiated its legitimacy. 10. The Petitioners further aver that central to the grievances is the arbitrary and inconsistent reclassification of bona fide members as "agency" members. They contend that this was applied indiscriminately to long-standing members who had diligently paid full union dues through T-pay deductions without interruption and had participated in previous elections (including 2021). 11. It is the Petitioner’s further contention that the removal of some members from the register of voters under the pretext of agency denied a large number of voters the right to vote. In their view, this was an action done in contempt of court orders in similar matters directed at the 1st and 2nd Respondents. 12. It is further asserted that no prior notice, justification, or opportunity for objection or rectification was afforded, despite the Petitioner’s repeated demands. According to the Petitioners, the result was the wholesale disenfranchisement of hundreds of eligible voters, including a substantial portion of the Petitioners’ support base, thereby tilting the electoral field in favour of preferred candidates. 13. The Petitioners further contended that notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal interim conservatory orders issued on 25th February 2026 in ***ELRCPET/E068/2026*** by Hon. Justice J.W. Keli, expressly restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents from proceeding with or facilitating the election for the position of Tertiary Secretary in the KUPPET Laikipia County Branch elections scheduled for 28th February 2026, the Respondents brazenly proceeded with the impugned electoral process. 14. The Petitioners further aver that the said orders in ***ELRCPET/E068/2026*** specifically prohibited the conduct of the election for that position, the declaration or gazettement of any purported winner, and the assumption of office by any person in respect thereof. 15. It is the Petitioner’s assertion that in flagrant disregard of the said court orders, the 5th Interested Party has since been purportedly declared as having “won” the position of Tertiary Secretary, and steps have been initiated to recognize and legitimize that outcome. 16. The Petitioners further aver that the purported election and declaration are therefore tainted with illegality, contempt of court, and constitutional impropriety, and cannot confer any lawful mandate upon the 5th Interested Party. 17. The Petitioners have further contended that the voter verification and polling process was riddled with deliberate flaws designed to obscure accountability and enable manipulation. In this regard, they contend that the official voter register was delivered from Nairobi headquarters on the morning of the election and imposed without any opportunity for cross verification against the branch's own membership records, despite explicit requests by candidates and agents. That further, initial verification relied on the T-pay online system for payslip confirmation, but this critical tool was abruptly disabled around 11:00 a.m., an interruption widely suspected to be intentional, thereafter permitting voting based solely on national identity cards, without payslips or other proof of TSC employment and union membership. 18. That further, voter eligibility decisions were arrogated by personnel from the national office, acting without the presence or involvement of candidate agents, in direct contravention of established protocols that vest such functions in impartial labour officers. 19. That further, multiple instances of double voting were documented, non-teachers, including university students and relatives of officials, were permitted to vote, thereby diluting the franchise with ineligible participants. 20. The Petitioners further contend that the application of the "Agency" rule was capricious and that while many bona fide members were turned away on this pretext, select individuals in the same category were allowed to vote after informally providing data to favoured intermediaries. 21. The Petitioners further aver that the machinations mirror a pattern of electoral abuse across KUPPET branches, specifically, Nairobi, Kiambu and Nakuru. 22. It is the Petitioners’ further assertion that the Respondents disregarded the Registrar of Trade Unions' directive mandating disclosure of updated membership and voters' registers at least 60 days in advance. 23. They further contend that the elections were scheduled on a day coinciding with the principals' meeting in Mombasa, which forced principals to miss the elections. Therefore, principals who are also members were not given a chance to participate in the elections. 24. It is the Petitioners’ further contention that the cumulative effect was an election process devoid of transparency, inclusivity, and legitimacy, resulting in outcomes that cannot withstand constitutional or statutory scrutiny. 25. It is against this background that the Petitioners seek the following reliefs: - 26. ***A Declaration that the KUPPET Laikipia County Branch elections conducted on 28th February 2026 were unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void.*** 27. ***A Declaration that the arbitrary and inconsistent reclassification of bona fide members as “Agency” members, without notice, hearing or written reasons, was unconstitutional, discriminatory and procedurally unfair.*** 28. ***An Order of Certiorari quashing the results of the said elections and nullifying all consequential acts flowing therefrom, including any declaration, publication, gazettement, swearing-in, or assumption of office by the purportedly elected officials.*** 29. ***An Order directing the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents to conduct fresh Laikipia County Branch elections within a time frame to be set by this Honourable Court, under strict supervision and in full compliance with the Constitution, the Labour Relations Act, 2007, the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, and the KUPPET Constitution.*** 30. ***An Order compelling the Respondents to prepare, publish and certify a transparent, verifiable and comprehensive membership and voters’ register at least sixty (60) days prior to the fresh elections, and to avail the same to all aspirants and members for scrutiny.*** 31. ***An Order of Mandamus compelling the 5th Respondent (Registrar of Trade Unions) and the 4th Respondent (County Labour Officer, Laikipia County) to exercise their statutory oversight mandate to ensure that any subsequent elections comply with the Constitution and the Labour Relations Act, 2007.*** 32. ***A Declaration that the Respondents’ willful disobedience of the conservatory orders issued in ELRCPET/E068/2026 constitutes contempt of court, together with such further consequential directions as this Honourable Court may deem fit to safeguard the authority and dignity of the Court.*** 33. ***General Damages (if applicable) for violation of constitutional rights, including infringement of the rights to equality, fair labour practices, freedom of association and fair administrative action.*** 34. ***Costs of this Petition, together with interest thereon, to be borne by the Respondents jointly and severally.*** 35. ***Such further, other or alternative reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem just, equitable and necessary to vindicate the supremacy of the Constitution and restore internal union democracy.*** 36. The 1st to 3rd Respondents together with the Interested Parties opposed the Petition through a joint Replying Affidavit sworn on 20th April 2026 by **Akelo M.T. Misori,** the 2nd Respondent herein and Secretary General of the 1st Respondent. 37. Mr. Misori deposes that he has been advised by counsel, which advice he verily believes to be true, that the Petition is incompetent for failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Trade Union Election Disputes) Procedure Rules and Practice Directions. 38. He further avers that the Petition is fatally defective on account of the doctrine of *sub judice,* there being pending matters namely, *Nairobi ELRC.PET/E013/2026, Nairobi ELRC.PET/E068/2026, Nairobi ELRC.PET/E025/2026, and Nakuru ELRC.PET/E009/2026.* According to Mr. Misori, although the Petitioners refer to recurring electoral disputes beyond the scope of the present Petition, they nevertheless purport to certify that no other suit involving the same subject matter is pending before a court of competent jurisdiction. 39. Mr. Misori further deposes that the issue relating to “agency” is presently the subject of active litigation in *Nairobi ELRC.PET/E013/2026,* which, according to him, was the first matter filed raising the said grievance. He contends that any attempt by another court to determine the same issue in subsequent proceedings would offend the doctrine of *sub judice.* 40. He further avers that while the Petitioners allege disobedience of court orders in related matters, they are estopped from prosecuting issues outside the confines of the specific proceedings in which such orders were issued. 41. It is Mr. Misori’s further deposition that the Petition discloses no reasonable cause of action against the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents or the Interested Parties. He contends that the role of KUPPET and its officials ceased once the Returning Officer took over the supervision of the Laikipia Branch elections. 42. Regarding the voter verification process, Mr. Misori avers that the voter register was accessible to all voters, candidates, labour officials, and other persons duly authorised to be present at the polling venue, and that the process was conducted transparently. 43. Mr. Misori further states that the alleged disabling of the T-Pay portal was beyond the control of the Union, the Union being merely an end-user of the system. 44. He further disputes the allegation that voter eligibility determinations were undertaken by officials from the National Office of the Union. According to Mr. Misori, voter eligibility was determined solely by a teacher’s membership status and compliance with Article 13.0 of the KUPPET Constitution. 45. Mr. Misori further contends that the allegations of double voting are false and misleading. He avers that had such an incident occurred, it would have been detected and reported by the Returning Officer. 46. He similarly denies the allegation that strangers participated in the voting process, maintaining that such an occurrence would equally have been reported by the Returning Officer had it taken place. 47. Mr. Misori further denies that officials from the National Office supervised the elections, insisting that the elections were supervised exclusively by the County Labour Office. 48. On the issue of scheduling of the elections, Mr. Misori avers that the KUPPET election timetable had been issued well in advance and that the Union had no prior knowledge of the Principals’ caucus allegedly coinciding with the elections. 49. He maintains that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents, together with the Interested Parties, acted in full compliance with the applicable statutory and legal framework governing trade union elections. 50. Mr. Misori further avers that the evidence relied upon by the Petitioners constitutes electronic evidence, which, he is advised, is inadmissible for want of a certificate under **Section 106 of the Evidence Act.** 51. It is Mr. Misori’s contention that the Petitioners have failed to discharge the requisite burden of proof in respect of the alleged electoral malpractices, asserting that the standard required to sustain a claim for nullification of trade union elections is particularly high. 52. In a rejoinder, the Petitioners filed a Further Affidavit sworn on 8th May 2026, by **Robert Miano**, the 1st Petitioner. 53. Mr. Miano deposes that he has examined the Respondents’ filed voter register and election materials produced before this Court, upon which he has discovered numerous irregularities, inconsistencies, and apparent falsifications which further confirm the allegations contained in the Petition and his Supporting Affidavits. 54. He avers that from the outset, the Petitioners’ complaint has been that the voter register was never availed prior to the election for purposes of scrutiny, verification, objection, or confirmation of voter eligibility. 55. Mr. Miano contends that the register was only introduced during the voting exercise itself, thereby denying candidates, agents, and members any meaningful opportunity to *verify eligible voters; confirm membership status; detect fictitious entries; identify transferred or retired teachers; and raise objections to unlawful participation.* He avers that the failure to provide the register before the election fundamentally compromised the transparency, accountability, and verifiability of the entire electoral process. 56. He further avers that he has observed glaring mathematical inconsistencies between the number of persons reflected as having participated and the declared election results. 57. That in relation to the Assistant Executive Secretary position, the struck-through entries in the register total approximately 1,419 participants. However, the declared results for the Assistant Executive Secretary position indicate a total of 1,439 votes cast. In Mr. Minao’s view, this creates an unexplained discrepancy of 20 votes, which cannot be accounted for from the register. According to Mr. Miano, the said discrepancy points to ballot stuffing, fictitious voting, manipulation of tallying, fabrication of results, or other forms of electoral malpractice. 58. Mr. Minao further avers that the Treasurer position reflects a total of 1,440 votes cast against approximately 1,419 registered participations. He contends that this reveals another unexplained discrepancy of 21 votes, which the Respondents have not explained. 59. That in relation to the Gender position, the declared votes total 1,398, thereby creating a negative discrepancy of 21 votes when compared to the register participation count. 60. Mr. Miano avers that although isolated under-voting may occasionally occur, the pattern of inconsistent figures across multiple positions demonstrates a fundamentally compromised electoral process lacking integrity, uniformity, transparency, and accountability. 61. He states that he has further observed that the register itself contains duplicated pages. Specifically, Pages 59 and 60 are repeated as pages 61 and 62; and the first and second pages of the register are similarly duplicated. Mr. Miano contends that the duplication of pages materially compromises the integrity and reliability of the register because it inflates the apparent number of participants; compromises the chain of custody of election materials; raises serious concerns regarding reconstruction or alteration of records; and renders independent verification impossible. 62. Mr. Miano further states that the register contains names of persons who were not eligible to participate in the election including teachers who transferred from Laikipia County more than one year prior and are currently stationed in Kakamega County; retired teachers; and persons categorized under retirement classifications, including “digit 2” retired categories. 63. He further states that the inclusion of transferred and retired teachers confirms that the register was never properly verified, sanitized, authenticated, or cleaned before use. 64. Mr. Miano further avers that the register produced before this Court cannot be the original register used during the actual voting exercise on 28th February 2026. He explains that during the actual voting exercise, members whose names appeared on the register were required to sign against their names after verification and participation in the voting process. He contends that the signatures by members constituted the only authentic and objective proof that a particular member had physically appeared and participated in the election. However, the register now produced before the Court conspicuously lacks those signatures. 65. He further avers that if members indeed signed the original register during voting, then a version produced without those signatures cannot possibly constitute the authentic original voting register. 66. Mr. Miano maintains that what has been produced before the Court appears to be an incomplete extract, altered copy, reconstructed document, or secondary version whose authenticity is highly questionable. 67. Mr. Miano further avers that a mere strike-through mark cannot conclusively prove participation because anyone could strike through a name. He argues that *there was no independent verification mechanism; the register itself had never been verified beforehand; and there was no transparent scrutiny process.* 68. He adds that **Nderitu Grace Muthoni** has sworn that she was on maternity leave at home and never voted and **Githuka Jacob Nganga** has sworn that he was hospitalized in Eldoret and could not possibly have voted. That despite the foregoing, both individuals appear in the register as persons who allegedly participated in voting. 69. Mr. Miano believes that the failure to produce the original signed register raises a serious and irresistible inference that the original register has been withheld; that the document produced before the Court is not the authentic polling register; and that the original signatures would expose widespread fictitious voting and manipulation. 70. He further states that the 5th Petitioner, **Beninta Kamau**, whose name appears as number 152 on the register, physically attended the election; *signed against her name; voted in the election; and was witnessed participating*. That despite actually voting, her name was nevertheless marked or struck out in a manner suggesting she did not vote. 71. Mr. Miano avers that the inclusion of persons who never voted constitutes *falsification of electoral records; fabrication of participation data; electoral fraud; and manipulation of voter turnout.* 72. He contends that once fictitious participation entries are established, it becomes impossible to ascertain: *who actually voted; how many people voted; whether only eligible members voted; and whether the declared results reflect the will of members.* 73. Mr. Miano contends that electoral materials ought to have remained under the custody and supervision of the Returning Officers and Labour Officers. That instead, the National Office, which had a direct political interest in the outcome in preparation for national union elections, retained substantial control over the process. 74. The Petitioners further filed an Affidavit sworn by ***Nderitu Grace Muthoni*** on 8th May 2026. Ms. Nderitu avers that she is a teacher employed by the TSC and currently posted at Manguo Junior Secondary School in Nyahururu town, Laikipia County. She adds that she is a bona fide member of the KUPPET, Laikipia Branch. 75. Ms. Nderitu avers that she is aware that the KUPPET Laikipia Branch elections were scheduled for and purportedly held on 28th February 2026. That at the time of the said elections, she was officially on maternity leave, having been granted the same by the TSC. 76. She avers that on 28th February 2026, she was at her residence attending to her newborn and was nowhere near the designated voting areas or polling stations for the KUPPET Laikipia branch elections. 77. Ms. Nderitu contends that she did not participate in the said elections, did not present herself for voting, and did not cast any ballot for any candidate. That she has since learnt with shock and consternation that the 1st Respondent (KUPPET) presented a register in court indicating that she participated in the voting process. 78. She contends that the inclusion of her name in the list of voters who cast their ballots is a gross factual falsification, unethical, and a clear case of electoral malpractice intended to verify a fraudulent outcome. 79. The Petitioners further filed an Affidavit sworn by **Githuka Jacob Nganga** on 8th May 2026.Mr. Githuka avers that he is a bona fide member of the KUPPET, Laikipia Branch. 80. He further deposes that it is deeply disappointing and concerning to find his name listed in the official election register as having voted at Wiyumiririe Secondary School, when in fact, he was nowhere near the vicinity. 81. He further avers that on the day of the election, he was hospitalized at Eldoret Hospital, a significant distance from the polling station, recovering from illness, and that he was physically unable to participate in the exercise. 82. Mr. Githuka further deposes that he is firmly opposed to the use of his personal details to validate an inaccurate voting record. 83. He is categorical that he did not participate in the election, and any entry indicating that his details were struck through as having participated in voting or cast a ballot is an error. 84. The Petitioners further filed an Affidavit sworn by **Gichachi Wachira** on 8th May 2026 in which he states that he is a registered member of the KUPPET, and a teacher at Olmoran High School in Laikipia County. 85. Mr. Wachira avers that on 28th February 2026, he participated in the Laikipia KUPPET Branch elections both as a voter and a candidate for the position of the Executive Secretary. 86. That at the voting station, the electoral setup consisted of nine (9) distinct register/voting points meant to serve the voters. 87. Mr. Wachira avers that contrary to standard electoral regulations requiring adequate oversight, there were only four (4) agents present and permitted to supervise the work of the voting clerks across all nine (9) register points. 88. That due to this severe mathematical mismatch, the four (4) agents could not physically, effectively, or simultaneously verify, monitor, or audit what the voting clerks were doing at the nine (9) separate points. 89. Mr. Wachira avers that early in the morning of the election day, a national official known as Madam Wabilianga arbitrarily and without lawful justification confiscated and took away the identification tag of one of their designated agents. That this high-handed action directly reduced their oversight capacity and left the remaining four (4) agents entirely overwhelmed and unable to cover the stations sufficiently. 90. He further avers that as a direct consequence of the lack of adequate agents, the verification of voters was seriously compromised, creating a wide loophole for electoral malpractices, double voting, and unverified entries. 91. The Petitioners further filed an Affidavit sworn on 8th May 2026 by **Caroline Wacheke.** 92. Ms. Wacheke deposes that she is a registered member of the KUPPET, Laikipia Branch, and a practicing teacher stationed at Mt. Kenya Primary School within Laikipia County. 93. She avers that she was directly involved in the contested KUPPET Laikipia Branch elections as an appointed polling and counting agent deployed specifically to the voter register verification section. 94. Ms. Wacheke avers that at the commencement of the voting process, their station suffered a severe shortage of personnel, as only four (4) agents were deployed to monitor nine (9) distinct register verification points. 95. That during the exercise, the KUPPET National Secretary for Gender, Hon. Catherine Wabilianga, arbitrarily intervened in the process, forcefully removed her from her designated register point, and confiscated her official agent identification credentials. 96. Ms. Wacheke avers that following her unlawful removal, only three (3) agents were left to man the entire nine (9) register verification points, creating an impossible situation that completely incapacitated their ability to meaningfully oversee the election clerks. 97. She avers that Hon. Catherine Wabilianga, as a representative of the KUPPET National Office, was legally obligated to maintain strict neutrality and allow the designated Ministry of Labour officials to conduct the elections independently. 98. Ms. Wacheke further avers that at approximately 11:00 am on the election day, the designated County Labour Officer for Laikipia, Mr. Gikuhi, was abruptly replaced by an unannounced official. 99. She states that the replacement official failed to communicate with the agents, stood by helplessly, and abdicated control of the election venue to KUPPET National Office officials and agents of preferred candidates. 100. Ms. Wacheke further deposes that this total administrative breakdown directly coincided with the deliberate shutting down of the official T-Pay electronic verification system, which was substituted with unverified manual processes. 101. That due to the compromised security and lack of agent oversight, security guards and administration officers actively permitted favored voters to bypass the mandatory registration queues and proceed straight into the voting classrooms. 102. According to Ms. Wacheke, she personally witnessed flagrant incidents of double and triple voting, including one specific incident where a female voter returned to vote for a third time. 103. The 4th and 5th Respondents did not file their responses to the Petition and did not participate in the proceedings herein. **Submissions** 1. The Petition was canvassed by way of written submissions. On the Petitioners’ part, it has been submitted that the failure to provide a credible and verifiable voter register strikes at the heart of the electoral process. In the same vein, the Petitioners have submitted that no voter register was availed prior to the election. They contend that a purported register was introduced on the morning of the election, thereby eliminating any possibility of scrutiny. That further, candidates and their agents were denied access to verify it. 2. In support of the Petitioners’ submissions, reliance was placed on the decisions in ***David Ngugi & 2 Others v Kenya Union of Post-Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET) & 5 Others, University Academic Staff Union (UASU) Kenyatta University Chapter v Registrar of Trade Unions & another*** and ***Japhat Muriithi Kabungo, Joseph Stanley Karo & Julia Wangeci Gichobi v Paul Kariuki Ndungu, Simon Wahogo & Francis Mwai [2017] KEELRC 900 (KLR.*** 3. It is further submitted by the Petitioners that the unjustified exclusion of legitimate members from the voters’ register violates participation rights and warrants nullification and a corrective process. To buttress this position, reliance has been placed on the case of ***Frankline Kaburu Kinoti & 3 others v University Academic Staff Union [UASU] Executive, Kenyatta University Chapter & 3 others; Kenyatta University (Interested Party) [2021] KEELRC 1059 (KLR).*** 4. It is the Petitioners’ position that the Respondents’ failure to publish and avail a verifiable register in advance, the denial of meaningful verification, and the continuing failure to produce the register and election materials before this Court render the elections incapable of verification and therefore unlawful. 5. The Petitioners have further submitted that despite formal demands, including a written request by the 1st Petitioner, to the Commissioner for Labour seeking comprehensive disclosure of election results, including specific vote tallies for each candidate, and the election materials, the Respondents failed to provide a detailed breakdown of votes cast for each candidate. 6. In the Petitioners’ view, the refusal to provide this information raises a strong presumption of manipulation and undermines the credibility of the entire process. In support of this argument, the Petitioners have cited the case of ***Benjamin & 40 others v Kenya Medical Practitioners & Dentists Union & another; Commissioner for Labour & 73 others (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 2314 (KLR).*** 7. Referencing the case of ***David Ngugi & 2 Others v KUPPET & 5 Others and Forum for Good Governance and Human Rights v Public Service Commission & 4 others [2025] KEELRC 83 (KLR),*** the Petitioners have submitted that membership can only be terminated through voluntary resignation or lawful expulsion following due process. In the same vein, the Petitioners contend that persons who continue to make union dues contributions and fall within the union’s membership framework are entitled to participate in union activities and elections. 8. It is the Petitioners’ further submission that the Respondents’ actions constitute multiple violations of the Constitution. In this regard, they argue that the selective exclusion of members violates Article 27 on equality and non-discrimination. That the denial of participation in union governance infringes Article 36 on freedom of association and the conduct of an opaque and exclusionary election violates Article 41 on fair labour practices. That further, the arbitrary and unreasoned decision-making process offends Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act. 9. In support of its arguments, the Petitioners have sought to rely on the case of ***Cheruiyot v Independent Electoral Committee (IEC) Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists and Dentists' Union (KMPDU) & another [2026] KEELRC 389 (KLR).*** 10. In their supplementary submissions, the Petitioners have argued that the eventual production of the purported voter register by the Respondents does not cure the illegality complained of in the Petition. In the same vein, they argue that a register concealed from scrutiny before voting and only produced after litigation had commenced cannot be regarded as credible electoral material capable of validating the election. 11. They have further submitted that the figures emerging from the Respondents’ own register and declared results reveal glaring and unexplained numerical inconsistencies that independently invalidate the election. 12. It is the Petitioners’ further submission that the register contains names of persons who were not eligible to participate in the election. 13. The Petitioners have further submitted that the register produced by the Respondents cannot possibly be the original voting register used during the election held on 28th February 2026. They argue that during the actual voting exercise, members whose names appeared on the register were required to sign against their names after verification and participation in the voting process. In their view, those signatures constituted the only authentic proof that a particular member had physically appeared and participated in the election. That, however, the register now presented before this Court conspicuously lacks those signatures. 14. The Petitioners further submit that the allegations against the Labour Officers remain undefended. 15. On their part, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents, together with the Interested Parties, filed joint written submissions in which they contend that the dispute herein arises from trade union elections and is therefore governed by **Section 34(4) of the Labour Relations Act** as well as the **Employment and Labour Relations Court (Trade Union Election Disputes) Procedures and Practice Directions, 2026**. 16. In this regard, they contend that the Petitioners improperly approached the Court by way of a constitutional petition without complying with the mandatory statutory framework governing such disputes. On that basis, the said Respondents and Interested Parties argue that the Petition is incompetent and improperly before the Court. In support of this position, reliance has been placed on the decision in ***Bichang'a & 2 others v Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) & 4 others (Consolidated Petition E007, E008 & E009 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 135 (KLR).*** 17. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents and the Interested Parties have further submitted that the present Petition offends **Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act,** contending that the Petitioners instituted the suit notwithstanding the existence of similar pending matters. 18. It is further submitted by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents and the Interested Parties that the Petition discloses no actionable wrongdoing attributable to them. According to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents and the Interested Parties, the Petitioners have failed to establish any nexus between them and the electoral irregularities. 19. They have further submitted that the allegations of electoral malpractices advanced by the Petitioners are unsupported by evidence. To this end, they have characterized the Petitioners’ assertions as flimsy and founded on hearsay. 20. It is the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents and Interested Parties’ position that they have demonstrated that the voter register was available and open for verification, that the elections were conducted under the supervision of the Returning Officer, and that no irregularities were reported through the lawful channels established for such complaints. 21. According to them, mere allegations are insufficient to invalidate an election. They maintain that the Petition is largely supported by hearsay. **Analysis and Determination** 1. The Court having considered the pleadings by all parties, the evidence placed on record, and the rival submissions, distills the following issues for determination: - 2. ***Whether the present Petition is competently before the Court;*** 3. ***Whether the Petition is barred by the doctrine of sub judice; and*** 4. ***Depending on (a) and (b), whether the Petition is merited.*** **Competence of the Petition** 1. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents and the Interested Parties contend that the present dispute arises from trade union elections and is therefore governed by **Section 34(4) of the Labour Relations Act** and the **Employment and Labour Relations Court (Trade Union Election Disputes) Procedures and Practice Directions, 2026.** On this score, they argue that the Petitioners improperly invoked the Court’s jurisdiction through a constitutional petition without adhering to the prescribed statutory framework. To this end, they maintain that the Petition is incompetent and improperly before the Court. 2. In essence, the objection by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents and the Interested Parties has everything to do with the form in which the proceedings were instituted, namely by way of a constitutional petition as opposed to its substance. 3. In light of the above 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. 4. More importantly, **Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution** is explicit that courts are to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. 5. In the Court’s view, the manner in which the present proceedings were instituted does not occasion any prejudice to the Respondents and does not go to the substance of the dispute before the Court. 6. Accordingly, to strike out or dismiss the Petition solely on account of the form in which it was presented would not only be unjust, but would also run contrary to the spirit and tenor of **Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution.** 7. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the contention by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents together with the Interested Parties to be devoid of merit. **Sub judice** 1. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents together with the Interested Parties, have further contended that the present Petition offends the doctrine of *sub judice*, on the basis that the Petitioners instituted these proceedings while similar matters, specifically *Nairobi ELRC Petition No. E013 of 2026* remains pending. 2. The doctrine of *sub judice* is codified under **Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act** in the following terms: - **“No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit or proceeding in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit or proceeding between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or** **any of them claim, litigating under the same title, where such suit or proceeding is pending in the same or any other court having jurisdiction in Kenya to grant the relief claimed.** ***Explanation - The pendency of a suit in a foreign court shall not preclude a court from trying a suit in which the same matters or any of them are in issue in such suit in such foreign court”.*** 1. In essence, the doctrine of *sub judice* bars a court from proceeding with the trial of a suit where the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same as that in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, pending before a court of competent jurisdiction. 2. The doctrine is intended to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously adjudicating proceedings involving substantially identical issues and seeking similar reliefs. 3. The Supreme Court addressed the doctrine of *sub judice* in ***Kenya National Commission on Human Rights v Attorney General; Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 16 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR*** as follows: - **“The term ‘sub-judice’ is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition as: “Before the Court or Judge for determination.” The purpose of the sub-judice rule is to stop the filing of a multiplicity of suits between the same parties or those claiming under them over the same subject matter so as to avoid abuse of the Court process and diminish the chances of courts, with competent jurisdiction, issuing conflicting decisions over the same subject matter. This means that when two or more cases are filed between the same parties on the same subject matter before courts with jurisdiction, the matter that is filed later ought to be stayed in order to await the determination to be made in the earlier suit. A party that seeks to invoke the doctrine of res sub-judice must therefore establish that; there is more than one suit over the same subject matter; that one suit was instituted before the other; that both suits are pending before courts of competent jurisdiction and lastly; that the suits are between the same parties or their representatives.** 1. And further, in ***Kenya Bankers Association v Kenya Revenue Authority [2019] eKLR,*** Mativo J (as he then was) restated the principles applicable to the doctrine of sub judice in the following terms: - **“34. For the doctrine of *sub judice* to apply the following principles ought to be present:- (a) There must exist two or more suits filed consecutively; (b) The matter in issue in the suits or proceedings must be** **directly and substantially the same, the parties in the suits or proceedings must be the same or must be parties under whom they or any of them claim and they must be litigating under the same title, the suits must be pending in the same or any other court having jurisdiction in Kenya to grant the relief claimed.”** 1. In support of the Respondents’ position, a copy of the Ruling in *Nairobi ELRC Petition No. E013 of 2026* was produced. From the said Ruling, it is evident that the principal issues for determination therein related to the Petitioner’s membership status and eligibility to vote in the KUPPET Nairobi County Branch elections, in light of his classification as a contributor of agency fees to the 1st Respondent, as well as the alleged violation of his right to worship. 2. In the present Petition, however, the issues in contention extend beyond the question of “agency”. Specifically, the Petitioners have raised other issues concerning the manner in which the KUPPET Laikipia County Branch elections were conducted on 28th February 2026. There is no indication that these issues form part of the matters directly in issue in *Nairobi ELRC Petition No. E013 of 2026.* 3. In that regard, it is apparent that, save for the issue of “agency”, the subject matter of the present proceedings is substantially distinct from that in *Nairobi ELRC Petition No. E013 of 2026.* 4. Accordingly, the Court finds that the present Petition does not fall within the ambit of the doctrine of *sub judice.* **Merit in the Petition** 1. One of the main issues raised by the Petitioners is that there was an arbitrary and inconsistent reclassification of bona fide members of the 1st Respondent as “agency” members. In this regard, the Petitioners contend that the removal of certain members from the voters’ register under the guise of “agency” status unlawfully disenfranchised a significant number of eligible voters. 2. In support of this contention, the Petitioners produced copies of payslips for five (5) teachers, namely *Kenei Brony* for March 2026, *Ewoi Scola* for February 2026, *Nakoli Francis Akamais* for March 2026, *Sylvia Nyaruai* for March 2026, and *Peter Wambugu* for November and December 2025 and January 2026. 3. It is evident from the said payslips that, both in the period preceding the impugned elections and immediately thereafter, the said teachers were remitting trade union dues to the 1st Respondent. 4. From the foregoing, it may be reasonably inferred that at the material time, the said teachers were members of the 1st Respondent trade union. 5. Notwithstanding the above, the names of the said teachers also appeared in the list of persons classified as contributing agency fees to the 1st Respondent. 6. As it is, there is no evidence that the said teachers had tendered resignations from the 1st Respondent trade union in accordance with **Section 48(6) of the Labour Relations Act**. Similarly, the 1st Respondent did not demonstrate, much less suggest, that any notices of resignation were received from the said teachers’ employer as contemplated under **Section 48(8) of the Labour Relations Act.** 7. In the absence of evidence that the said teachers ceased to be members of the 1st Respondent through the procedure prescribed under the Labour Relations Act, it follows that they remained entitled to participate in the union branch elections. 8. It is more than probable that, by being categorised as contributors of agency fees to the 1st Respondent, the affected teachers were excluded from participating in the impugned branch elections, contrary to **Article 41(2)(c) of the Constitution** and **Section 4(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.** 9. This classification reinforces the conclusion that legitimate members of the 1st Respondent union were effectively disenfranchised and denied the opportunity to participate in the election of union officials as guaranteed under the Constitution and the Labour Relations Act. 10. The Petitioners have further contended that the voter verification and polling process was marred by deliberate irregularities intended to obscure accountability and facilitate manipulation. In particular, they allege that the official voters’ register was supplied on the morning of the election and imposed without affording candidates and their agents an opportunity for prior verification against branch membership records. 11. In support of this contention, the Petitioners produced a letter dated 2nd February 2026 authored by the 1st Petitioner and addressed to the 2nd Respondent, requesting the Laikipia KUPPET branch membership register. 12. Despite the 2nd Respondent’s assertion in his Replying Affidavit that the voter register was accessible to all voters, candidates, labour officers, and other authorised persons present at the polling station, no evidence was tendered to demonstrate that the register was made available to candidates ahead of the elections. In particular, there is no evidence that the 2nd Respondent acted on the 1st Petitioner’s request by furnishing the voter register or indicating where the register could be accessed. 13. The foregoing circumstances lend credence to the Petitioners’ assertion that the Respondents’ failure to avail the register prior to the elections deprived candidates, agents, and members of a meaningful opportunity to verify eligible voters, confirm membership status, detect fictitious entries, identify transferred or retired teachers, and raise objections to any unlawful participation. 14. Accordingly, the Court finds the Petitioners’ assertions regarding the limited accessibility of the voter register to be plausible and not far-fetched. 15. This Court concurs with the decision in ***Frankline Kaburu Kinoti & 3 others v University Academic Staff Union [UASU] Executive, Kenyatta University Chapter & 3 others; Kenyatta University (Interested Party) [2021] KEELRC 1059 (KLR)*** that the process leading to elections is as important as the actual voting on the election date. 16. As was further held by the Court in that case, processes that do not meet the high standards of democracy risk being reversed, irrespective of the outcomes. This Court concurs with that position. 17. The Petitioners have further challenged the integrity of the voting process, alleging that certain individuals were recorded as having voted despite not participating in the election. In this regard, they cite ***Nderitu Grace Muthoni,*** who is said to have been on maternity leave, and ***Githuka Jacob Nganga***, who is alleged to have been hospitalised in Eldoret on the day the impugned branch elections took place. 18. In support of these assertions, the Petitioners filed an affidavit sworn by *Nderitu Grace Muthoni*, in which she deposes that she was on maternity leave on 28th February 2026 and did not participate in the elections. Notably, the 1st Respondent did not specifically controvert this deposition. 19. A review of the KUPPET Laikipia County Branch voters’ register produced by the Respondents indicates that *Nderitu Grace Muthoni* is marked as having voted, her name having been struck through. 20. Similarly, *Githuka Jacob Nganga* swore an affidavit deposing that he was hospitalised at Eldoret Hospital on 28th February 2026, recovering from an illness, and was therefore physically unable to participate in the elections. Notwithstanding this, the voters’ register similarly reflects that his name was struck through, indicating that he had voted, a position that was not rebutted by the Respondents. 21. The foregoing inconsistencies raise doubt as to the credibility and integrity of the outcome of the KUPPET Laikipia Branch elections held on 28th February 2026. 22. All in all, the Court is persuaded that the Petition is merited, in that the outcome of the KUPPET Laikipia County Branch elections held on 28th February 2026 was not conducted in a transparent, fair, and accountable manner. The Court is further satisfied that the rights of the 1st Respondent’s members guaranteed under **Article 41(2) (c) of the Constitution and Section 4(2) (b) of the Labour Relations Act** were violated through their disenfranchisement. **Disposition** 1. In the final analysis, the Petition dated 5th March 2026 is allowed, and the Court issues the following orders: - 2. ***A declaration is hereby issued that the KUPPET Laikipia County Branch elections conducted on 28th February 2026 were irregular and lacked credibility.*** 3. ***Consequently, the election results arising from the said elections are hereby nullified.*** 4. ***The 1st and 2nd Respondents are hereby directed to update the voters’ register for the KUPPET Laikipia County Branch and avail the same to all members for scrutiny prior to the conduct of fresh elections.*** 5. ***Upon the updating and verification of the voters’ register by members, fresh elections shall be conducted within sixty (60) days hereof in accordance with the applicable law and the Constitution of the Union.*** 6. ***There shall be no order as to costs.*** **DATED, SIGNED** and **DELIVERED** at **NYERI** this **15th** dayof **May,** 2026. ……………………………… **STELLA RUTTO** **JUDGE** **In the presence of**: Mr. Okundi for the Petitioners Mr. Kiranga instructed by Ms. Akello for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents and Interested Parties Ndati Court Assistant **ORDER** In 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. **STELLA RUTTO** **JUDGE**