https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1651

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT ELDORET** **CAUSE NO. E004 OF 2026** *(Before Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango)* **PETER ODUOR ODIMA………………….……………..... CLAIMANT** **VERSUS** **THE NATIONAL GENERAL SECRETARY-** **KENYA NATIONAL PRIVATE** **SECURITY WORKERS UNION…………………..1ST RESPONDENT** **KENYA NATIONAL PRIVATE SECURITY** **WORKERS UNION…………………………………..2ND RESPONDENT** **AND** **THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS.1ST INTERESTED PARTY** **THE COUNTY LABOR OFFICE** **UASIN GISHU COUNTY…………………..2ND INTERESTED PARTY** **THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR….3RD INTERESTED PARTY** **JUDGMENT** 1. The Claimant is an adult male and a member of the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union. 2. The 1st Respondent is the National General Secretary-Kenya Private Security Workers Union at National level. 3. The 2nd Respondent is the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union, a registered trade union operating at the national level within the Republic of Kenya. 4. The 1st Interested Party is the registrar of trade unions 5. The 2nd Interested Party is the County Labour Officer Uasin Gishu County 6. The 3rd Interested Party is the Commissioner for Labour under the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection. 7. The Claimant herein filed the Memorandum of Claim dated 16th January 2021(sic) seeking the following orders: 1. A declaration that the Respondents actions of conducting elections on 15th January 2026 was unlawful, unprocedural and unfair and that the Claimant be allowed to perform its mandate and vie for any position during elections as envisaged under law and the unions constitution without fear, biasness, harassment and intimidation. 2. A declaration that the purported impugned elections held on 15th January 2026-for the Uasin Gishu County Branch Union officials of the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union is illegal/unlawful, null and void and therefore the court uphold/maintain the Uasin Gishu County Branch elections date for 1st February 2026 and/or any other date deemed fit by the honourable court. 3. Mandatory orders compelling/directing the 1st Interested Party/Registrar of trade unions not to accept and or register any names of officials purported to have been illegally/unlawfully elected on the 15th January 2026 as Uasin Gishu County Branch officials of the Kenya national Private Security Workers Union. 4. Prohibitory orders do issue restraining the Respondents and/or its agents from victimizing, intimidating, coercing, harassing, persuading, dissuading the Applicant to leave the membership of the Union and/or the 2nd Respondent be restrained from interfering, barring or otherwise frustrating the Applicant from voting and/or vying for any elective post including, but not limited to, the position of a branch office and/or the forth coming National office elections of the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union. 5. Costs and interest of this suit. 6. General damages for unfair, unprocedural, unconstitutional act of attempting and/or barring the claimant from contesting in any elective position of the Uasin Gishu branch office and national office. 7. Any other further and/or better relief as this Honourable Court may deem just and fit to grant. **The Claimant’s Case** 1. The Claimant avers that he was an elected official of the Uasin Gishu Branch of the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union, having been duly elected during the previous branch elections and subsequently registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions. 2. He states that under the Union's Constitution, he was mandated, in his capacity as Branch Secretary, to prepare, announce and organize branch elections, including receiving nomination papers, convening meetings of the Branch Executive Committee and preparing the election budget. 3. It is the Claimant’s case that on or about 25th September 2025, the Registrar of Trade Unions issued a directive requiring all trade unions to conduct elections commencing at the branch level. He avers that the said directive was communicated to the 1st Respondent who in turn relayed the same to the Claimant. 4. The Claimant avers that the said directive and in consultation with the Branch Executive Committee and delegates, the Claimant announced and scheduled the Uasin Gishu Branch elections for 1st February 2026. 5. The Claimant contends that the Respondents, disregarding the statutory requirement of sixty (60) days' notice and the directives issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, unlawfully interfered with the electoral process and purported to conduct elections on 15th January 2026. According to the Claimant, the notice convening the said elections was issued on 13th January 2026, barely two days before the election date and further altered the venue previously communicated by the Branch Secretary. 6. The Claimant averred that the Respondents proceeded with the elections held on 15th January 2026 without involving either the Uasin Gishu County Labour Officer, who was the designated Returning Officer, or the Claimant in his capacity as Branch Secretary. According to the Claimant, this effectively excluded him from participating in the electoral process despite the fact that he had duly issued a notice convening elections scheduled for 1st February 2026, which notice had been ratified by the Branch Executive Committee, delegates and the County Labour Officer. 7. The Claimant further avers that despite the County Labour Officer having notified the Respondents that the branch elections were scheduled for 1st February 2026, the Respondents disregarded the said notification and proceeded to conduct the impugned elections, thereby creating a risk that the names of officials purportedly elected therein would be unlawfully registered. 8. The Claimant contended that the Respondents' actions in conducting the impugned elections were unconstitutional, unlawful and contrary to the Union’s Constitution and applicable labour laws. He further averred that the said actions infringed upon his fundamental rights and freedoms and undermined the principles of fair administration and justice. 9. The Claimant contends that the process culminating in the elections held on 15th January 2026 was unlawful, irregular and procedurally flawed. He further alleges that the process of presenting a new Branch Secretary for the Uasin Gishu Branch was fraudulent and void ab initio. 10. The Claimant further avers that the 1st Respondent announced national elections of the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union scheduled for 3rd March 2026, with nominations slated for 16th February 2026. He stated that he intended to contest in the said elections but feared that the impugned branch elections unlawfully and unfairly disadvantaged him. 11. The Claimant further alleges that the 1st Respondent's personal differences with him have escalated to the extent that his rights as a member and branch official of the Union have been infringed and threatened, with the intention of ensuring that individuals aligned to the 1st Respondent occupy elective positions within the Union. 12. The Claimant contends that the actions complained of are motivated by the 1st Respondent's apprehension that the Claimant intends to contest for the position of National General Secretary, a position currently held by the 1st Respondent. 13. The Claimant further avers that the Respondents' decision to alter the election date from 1st February 2026 to 15th January 2026 without adequate notice was intended to deny him the opportunity to participate in the electoral process and to vie for elective office. 14. According to the Claimant, the Respondents' conduct is intended to render him ineligible or otherwise unable to contest for the positions of Branch Secretary and National General Secretary in the elections. 15. The Claimant avers that he lodged several complaints with the Interested Parties regarding the matters complained of, but the Respondents failed, refused and/or neglected to comply with the directives and interventions made by the Interested Parties. **Response to Claim** 1. The Respondents filed a Response to the Memorandum of Claim dated 12th February 2026. In their Response, the Respondents maintained that the dispute concerns a concluded trade union electoral process whose outcome has already been registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions. 2. It is the Respondent’s case that the 2nd Respondent is a duly registered trade union operating under its Constitution (2016 Edition as amended in 2021) and that it functions through a structured governance framework in which branch offices operate under national oversight and constitutional control. 3. The Respondents assert that branch offices are not autonomous entities capable of independently altering nationally coordinated electoral timelines and are subject to the Union's constitutional structure and administrative direction. 4. The Respondents further contend that the 1st Respondent, being sued in his capacity as National General Secretary, has no separate juristic personality from the Union and that no independent cause of action has been disclosed against him. 5. The Respondents aver that on 25th September 2025, the Registrar of Trade Unions directed trade unions to conduct elections commencing at the branch level. That the directive was addressed to the Union as a corporate entity, thereby imposing upon it the responsibility of ensuring compliance. 6. According to the Respondents, the Union commenced a nationwide harmonization process on 26th September 2025 and subsequently issued a notice dated 13th November 2025 directing all branch secretaries to conduct branch elections on 15th January 2026. 7. The Respondents state that the adoption of a harmonized national election date was intended to ensure statutory compliance, coordinated supervision, orderly submission of election returns, financial accountability and institutional integrity. 8. The Respondents further aver that the Claimant received the harmonized election notice and neither objected to it nor challenged its legality before any competent forum. That instead, the Claimant allegedly issued a separate notice scheduling branch elections for 1st February 2026 at Sosiani Secondary School without authorization and contrary to the nationally approved election timetable. 9. The Respondents contend that on 26th November 2025, the Claimant circulated the said notice to members and shop stewards while purporting to rely on the Registrar's directive despite having altered the nationally approved election date. 10. It is the Respondents’ case that intervention by the national office became necessary in order to prevent fragmentation of the electoral process and possible non-compliance with statutory requirements. 11. The Respondents aver that on 5th January 2026, the Claimant was required to explain his issuance of a contradictory election notice, the submission of incomplete election documentation and his failure to align with the harmonized election timetable. They state that the Claimant failed to respond to the said request. 12. The Respondents further state that on 6th January 2026, the Claimant was directed to submit updated lists of branch officials and shop stewards. According to the Respondents, the information submitted contained various anomalies, including names not appearing in national records, incomplete contact details and officials whose union dues were allegedly in arrears. 13. The Respondents maintain that the Claimant did not demonstrate compliance with the eligibility requirements prescribed under the Union Constitution, including proof that he was a fully paid-up member entitled to contest in the elections. 14. The Respondents further aver that the Claimant was expressly informed that all branch elections would be conducted on 15th January 2026 and that any election conducted outside the approved timetable would be invalid. 15. According to the Respondents, a consultative meeting of branch secretaries was held on 13th January 2026, which the Claimant attended, and at which it was resolved that all branch elections would proceed on 15th January 2026 in accordance with the harmonized timetable. 16. It is their case that the election date had been fixed nationally since September 2025 and that the Claimant's allegation of inadequate notice is therefore unfounded. 17. The Respondents aver that elections were conducted on 15th January 2026 in accordance with the Union Constitution and applicable legal requirements and that there is no evidence of electoral malpractice, ballot manipulation or unlawful exclusion of candidates. 18. It is averred that following the elections, the requisite notification of change of officials was submitted to the Registrar of Trade Unions pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Labour Relations Act and that the Registrar formally registered the changes on 21st January 2026. 19. The Respondents contend that the Claimant has neither challenged the Registrar's decision through judicial review proceedings nor filed a competent election petition challenging the registration. 20. The Respondents therefore aver that the reliefs sought are unavailable in law since a completed and registered election cannot be invalidated through an ordinary claim and the Registrar’s statutory decisions cannot be interfered with absent appropriate proceedings. 21. Consequently, the Respondents maintain that the Memorandum of Claim discloses no cognizable employment and labour relations dispute and instead constitutes an impermissible challenge to a concluded and registered trade union election process. 22. The Respondents thus urged the Court to dismiss the Claim in its entirety with costs. 23. The suit was disposed of by way of written submissions. Both parties duly filed their written submissions ***The Claimant’s submissions*** 1. In his submissions, the Claimant identified the issues for submissions to be: - 2. Whether the impugned Eldoret branch elections held on 15th January, 2026 were null and void. 3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought 4. Who should bear the costs of the suit. 5. On the first issue, the Claimant submits that the elections conducted on 15th January 2026 were unlawful, unprocedural and in contravention of the Constitution of the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union. 6. According to the Claimant, Rule 14(b) of the Union Constitution vests the authority to convene branch elections in the Branch Secretary, who is required to issue a fourteen-day notice specifying the date, time and venue of the Branch General Meeting at which elections are to be conducted. 7. It was submitted that contrary to the Union Constitution, the impugned elections were convened by the 1st Respondent and not by the Branch Secretary. Additionally, the Claimant contended that the Respondents acted ultra vires by issuing a notice dated 13th January 2026 and conducting elections on 15th January 2026, thereby affording members only two days' notice. 8. The Claimant further submitted that the Respondents unlawfully altered the election venue previously communicated by the Branch Secretary and proceeded with the elections without the involvement of the Uasin Gishu County Labour Officer, who was the designated Returning Officer. It was argued that valid notice had already been issued for elections scheduled to take place on 1st February 2026, which date had been approved by the Branch Executive Committee, delegates and the County Labour Officer. 9. According to the Claimant, despite being notified that elections were to be conducted on 1st February 2026, the Respondents disregarded the said notices and proceeded with the impugned elections. The Claimant maintained that the actions of the Respondents were irregular, unlawful and calculated to facilitate the registration of officials purportedly elected through an illegitimate process. 10. The Claimant also challenged the legality of the electoral process on the ground that several persons who proposed and seconded candidates were not duly recognized shop stewards of the Eldoret Branch as required under Rules 13 and 14 of the Union Constitution. 11. It was further submitted that the person purportedly elected as Branch Secretary had not paid the nomination fee of Kshs. 50,000 as required under Rule 13(xiii) of the Union Constitution and was therefore ineligible to contest for the position. 12. The Claimant additionally contended that the elections lacked the requisite quorum. According to the Claimant, only nine shop stewards attended the elections while the Eldoret Branch had a total of twenty-five shop stewards, thereby falling short of the two-thirds quorum requirement prescribed under Rule 14(c) of the Union Constitution. 13. The Claimant further faulted the participation of a Labour Officer from Bungoma in the electoral process, contending that the officer had no lawful mandate to oversee elections for the Eldoret Branch and that the exercise was undertaken without the participation of the Uasin Gishu County Labour Officer. 14. On this basis, the Claimant urged the Court to declare the elections conducted on 15th January 2026 null and void. 15. The Claimant also prayed for the reliefs sought in his claim. ***The Respondent’s submissions*** 1. The Respondents identified the following issues for determination: 2. Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim 3. Whether the claim discloses an employment dispute or a trade union election dispute 4. Whether the Claimant complied with the statutory framework governing trade union election disputes 5. Whether the elections conducted on 15th January 2026 were lawful and regular 6. Whether the prayers sought have been overtaken by events 7. Whether the suit amounts to an abuse of the court process. 8. On the first issue, the Respondents submitted that this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present claim. Relying on the decision in ***Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR*** and ***Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank & 2 Others [2012] eKLR,*** the Respondents contended that the dispute before the Court is, in substance, a trade union election dispute governed by section 34(4) of the Labour Relations Act and the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Trade Union Election Disputes) Procedure and Practice Directions, 2025. They submitted that argued that the said framework establishes a specialized, self-contained and exclusive mechanism for the resolution of such disputes. 9. According to the Respondents, this position was authoritatively settled in ***Patrick Sakwa v Kenya National Private Security Workers Union & Others, Petition No. E010 of 2026,*** where the Court held that trade union election disputes are sui generis and must be instituted strictly within the statutory election petition framework, which is both mandatory and exclusive. The Respondents submitted that proceedings commenced outside that framework are incompetent and incapable of sustaining the reliefs sought. 10. The Respondents submitted that the Claimant failed to invoke the prescribed statutory regime and instead approached the Court through an improper procedural avenue, thereby failing to properly invoke the Court's jurisdiction. Consequently, they urged the Court to find that it lacks jurisdiction ab initio and to strike out the claim with costs. 11. With regard to the issue whether the claim discloses an employment dispute or a trade union election dispute, the Respondents submitted that the claim, properly construed, is a trade union election dispute and not an employment dispute falling within the Court’s ordinary employment jurisdiction. They argued that there is no employer-employee relationship in contention, nor are there allegations of dismissal, termination of employment, or violation of employment rights. The Respondents submitted that the Claimant's grievances revolve entirely around the conduct, supervision and outcome of trade union elections. 12. The Respondents further submitted that the Court is required to look beyond the form of pleadings and ascertain the true substance of the dispute. They argued that a litigant cannot, through artful drafting, convert an election dispute into an employment claim in order to evade a mandatory statutory regime. 13. On the issue whether the Claimant complied with the statutory framework governing trade union election disputes, the Respondents submitted that the Claimant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements prescribed by law. The Respondents submitted that trade union election disputes must be instituted as election petitions within the prescribed timelines, in the prescribed form, and upon compliance with mandatory requirements, including the deposit of security for costs. 14. According to the Respondents, these requirements are substantive and go to the root of the Court's jurisdiction rather than constituting mere procedural technicalities. The Respondents relied on the decisions in ***Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume [1992] KLR 21*** for the proposition that where a statute provides a clear procedure for redress, that procedure must be strictly followed. They also cited ***Geoffrey Muthinja & Another v Samuel Muguna Henry & 1756 Others [2015] eKLR***, where the Court reiterated that parties cannot circumvent prescribed statutory mechanisms. 15. The Respondents submitted that the Claimant neither filed an election petition, complied with the prescribed timelines, adhered to the prescribed form, nor satisfied the requirement for security for costs. The Respondents maintained that these omissions are fatal and render the entire claim incompetent. 16. Regarding the legality and regularity of the elections conducted on 15th January 2026, the Respondents submitted that the elections were conducted strictly in accordance with the law, applicable regulations and the union constitution. They contended that the evidentiary record demonstrates that the Registrar of Trade Unions lawfully sanctioned the electoral process, that a harmonized and procedurally sound electoral framework was adopted, and that elections were subsequently conducted on 15th January 2026 in accordance with that framework. The Respondents further submitted that the results were formally registered, thereby validating the process. According to the Respondents, every stage of the process was regular, transparent and institutionally sanctioned. 17. The Respondents submit that the Claimant failed to place before the Court any material evidence demonstrating illegality, procedural impropriety or irregularity in the electoral process. They submitted that the claim is founded on bare allegations devoid of evidentiary support. Reliance was placed on ***CMC Aviation Ltd v Mohammed Noor [2015] eKLR.*** They therefore urged the Court to find that there is no legal or factual basis upon which the electoral process can be impeached and to uphold the validity of the elections. 18. On whether the prayers sought have been overtaken by events, the Respondents submitted that elections were conducted, results declared and officials duly registered, with the consequence that the substratum of the dispute no longer exists. In support of this position, the Respondents cited the cases of ***Raila Odinga & Others v IEBC & 3 Others [2013] eKLR*** and ***Attorney General v Law Society of Kenya & Another [2017] eKLR*** for the proposition that courts do not act in vain and should not grant orders that have been overtaken by events. 19. Accordingly, the Respondents submitted that the prayers sought are spent and incapable of enforcement. 20. On whether the suit amounts to an abuse of the court process, the Respondents submitted that the Claimant deliberately bypassed a mandatory statutory regime and mounted a collateral challenge against a concluded electoral process. They submitted that such conduct undermine the statutory framework governing trade union elections and constitute an abuse of the court process. 21. In the end, the Respondents submitted that the claim is fundamentally defective in form, substance as it was instituted without jurisdiction, through the wrong procedural framework and against a process that had already been concluded. 22. The Respondents prayed that the claim be dismissed in its entirety with costs and that the Court find that the prayers sought have been overtaken by events. **Determination** 1. Having considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions by the parties, the issues arising for determination are:- 2. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute before it; 3. Whether the elections of the Uasin Gishu Branch of the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union conducted on 15th January 2026 were unlawful, irregular, null and void; 4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. ***Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute before it*** 1. Jurisdiction is the foundation upon which judicial authority rests. Without jurisdiction, a court has no power to make one more step. In the celebrated case of ***Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1***, the Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction is everything and that where a court finds that it lacks jurisdiction, it must immediately down its tools. 2. The Respondents challenged the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the dispute before it is a trade union election dispute governed by section 34(4) of the Labour Relations Act and the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Trade Union Election Disputes) Procedure and Practice Directions, 2025. According to the Respondents, the Claimant ought to have invoked the specialized election petition framework rather than institute the present claim by way of an ordinary Memorandum of Claim. 3. From the pleadings filed by the parties, it is evident that the dispute concerns the conduct, supervision and validity of elections for officials of the Uasin Gishu Branch of the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union. The Claimant seeks, among other reliefs, declarations that the elections held on 15th January 2026 were unlawful, irregular and null and void. 4. Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act confer jurisdiction upon this Court to hear and determine disputes relating to employment and labour relations, including disputes concerning trade unions and their operations. 5. The fact that the dispute concerns trade union elections does not, of itself, oust the jurisdiction of this Court. The procedure set out in the Labour Relations Court (Trade Union Election Disputes) Procedure and Practice Directions, 2025 do not provide for a separate or specialized forum or body to hear union election disputes. It only provides a format for filing the election disputes in this court. Under Article 159(2) of the Constitution and section 20(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act a suit cannot be defeated for want of form. 6. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to entertain disputes relating to trade unions and their elections. I therefore find and hold that it has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute before it. ***Whether the elections of the Uasin Gishu Branch of the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union conducted on 15th January 2026 were unlawful, irregular, null and void*** 1. Section 34 of the Labour Relations Act provides that the elections of a trade union shall be carried out in accordance with the trade union’s registered constitution. The provision is reproduced below: *Election of officials.* *34.(1) The election of officials of a trade union, employers’ organisation or federation shall be conducted in accordance with their registered constitutions.* 1. The Claimant contended that under Rule 14(b) of the Union Constitution, the authority to convene branch elections rests with the Branch Secretary and that he had duly scheduled elections for 1st February 2026. He further argued that the elections conducted on 15th January 2026 were convened on short notice, lacked quorum, involved ineligible participants and were conducted without the involvement of the Uasin Gishu County Labour Officer. 2. On their part, the Respondents maintained that following the directive issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, the Union adopted a harmonized national electoral timetable requiring all branch elections to be conducted on 15th January 2026. They further contended that the Claimant was aware of the harmonized timetable and participated in meetings relating thereto. 3. Based on the material before me, it is evident that the 1st Respondent made prior preparations for the elections and notified all Branch Secretaries, whose mandate it is to issue branch election notices, of the decision to hold all the union’s branch elections on 15th January, 2026. Contrary to the directive of the 1st Respondent, the Claimant issued notice dated 26th November, 2025 for Uasin Gishu Branch elections to be held on 1st February, 2026. 4. According to Rules 14(b) and 15(c) of the 2nd Respondent’s Constitution, notice of branch elections are to be issued by the Branch Secretary. Rules 14(d) however permits the General Secretary to convene a Branch meeting if for any reason the Branch Secretary fails to do so. Rules 14(b) and (d) are reproduced below. (b) Notice The Branch Secretary shall give notice for a Branch General Meeting stating the date, time and place fourteen (14) days before the meeting. All branch officials shall be elected at the branch General Meeting provided that no member shall be legible to attend or vote or be elected in to office if he/she is in arrears with his/her Union monthly subscription for more than thirteen (13) weeks. (d) Failure to Convene Branch General Meeting If for any reason the Branch Secretary fails to convene a Branch General Meeting seven days after receipt of notice from the National General Secretary in consultation with the Secretariat shall have powers to convene the Branch General Meeting. Such a meeting convened by the National General Secretary shall be governed by the same rules as to the Composition, quorum and voting necessary for the Branch General Meeting. 1. The issue therefore is whether the Uasin Gishu branch elections held on 15th were properly convened in accordance with the union constitution. 2. According to the Respondent, a consultative meeting of all branch secretaries was held on 13th January, 2026, which was attended by the Claimant among other Branch Secretaries, where it was resolved that branch elections would proceed on 15th January, 2026. 3. The Respondent’s aver that they engaged the Ministry of Labour to secure an officer to supervise the Uasin Gishu branch elections at Park Hotel in Turbo and that elections were conducted on 15th January, 2026. 4. In the list and bundle of Documents filed by the Respondents, it is stated that the notice for Uasin Gishu Branch elections was issued through document No. 15 of the Respondent’s bundle. The said document is a notice dated Thursday 13th November, 2025 and is reproduced below: **KENYA NATIONAL PRIVATE SECURITY WORKERS’ UNION** Thursday 13th November, 2025 Our Ref: KNPSWU/BRS/BE/11/025 TO: All Branch Secretaries. KENYA NATIONAL PRIVATE SECURITY WORKERS UNION. Dear Brothers & Sisters. **RE: NOTICE FOR KNPSWU BRANCH ELECTIONS.** I refer to the above captioned matter. In accordance with the powers conferred upon me by our registered Union Constitution and further to the communication from the Registrar of Trade Unions dated 25th September 2025 (Ref: ML&SP/TU/ELECTIONS/2026), I hereby issue a NOTICE directing ALL KNPSWU Branch Secretaries to conduct their respective branch elections on 15th January 2026. These elections shall be conducted as directed by the Registrar of Trade Unions and all applicants must strictly comply fully with our registered Constitution, the Labour Relations Act and the Constitution of Kenya. Any person acting contrary to these directives shall face stern disciplinary action. All branches are further advised to ensure gender and regional balance during the election process to give our Union the true face of national, regional and global requirements, especially Uni Global Union which we are an affiliate and observe the Uni Global Union which we are an affiliate and observe the Uni 40 for 40 gender rules. All Branch Secretaries are therefore required to submit the time, venue and budgets of their scheduled general meetings of shop stewards to my office within fourteen (14) days upon receipt of this notice. This will enable my office to supervise and monitor the elections to ensure that they are free, fair, and transparent for all interested parties/applicants. Kindly find below the names proposed by the National Executive Council on 8th August 2025 and approved on 31st October 2025 by the Secretariat, who have been tasked to receive, vet, supervise and advice the applicants on the process and the requirements as per the Constitution: 1. Joash Soita - National Organizing Secretary (0722796432) 2. Antony Githinji – Industrial Relation Officer (070413662) [The page attached seems to be incomplete as there is no signature page indicating the end of the letter] 1. The above letter is filed together with Nomination Forms for the positions of Branch Chairman, Vice Chairman, Branch Secretary, Assistant Branch Secretary, Assistant Treasurer, Committee Member and Member. The forms are 8 (eight in number), with the one for Branch Secretary, filed twice meaning that the forms are for 7 officials. 2. At page 60 of the Respondents’ bundle is another notice of elections dated 13th January, 2026 as reproduced below: ***KENYA NATIONAL PRIVATE SECURITY WORKERS’ UNION*** *13th January 2026* *Our Ref: KNPSWU/BSE/13/01/026* *To.* *The Branch Secretary Eldoret Branch.* *Dear Sir.* *RE:NOTICE FOR ELECTION DATED 13th NOVEMBER 2025* *I make reference to the Registrar of Trade Unions Elections Notice dated 25th September 2025 and my notice dated 13th November 2025 and lastly your notice dated 26th November 2025 and your budget request dated 17th November 2025 and wish to respond as follows based on the above stated notices.* *It is within your information that the Registrar of Trade Unions was clear in her communication that the election be conducted within our Registered Constitution. I am disturbed that after serving in your capacity as a Branch Secretary in Eldoret Branch for over-15 years. you are issuing a notice for election to paid up members as opposed to the routine and traditions of shopstewards and to make matters worse issuing your own date and venue without the knowledge of the purported members you appear to be addressing without any consultation from either secretariat or my office.* *I wish to remind you that our constitution is clear on who elects the Branch Secretaries as opposed to your paid up members which is aimed at creating confusion and to make it even worse creating another center of authority within your office.* *From today’s meeting (13/01/2026), which was attended by all registered Branch Secretaries from across the country in which you were also in attendance everyone agreed to proceed with elections as per my Notice guidance except you who insisted on conducting elections on the 1st February 2026 in Sosiany School in Eldoret. We have just learned that the 1st of February is a Sunday and not a working day and your lame excuse is that the Labour Officer is not available on the 15th January 2026 is a lame excuse. This leaves a lot to be desired.* *Therefore, I purpose to inform you that from today’s meeting in which you were in attendance, we have agreed that the elections must proceed on as scheduled and my office is reaching out to the Commissioner for Labour lo provide a Labour Officer to the venue from Eldoret Labour office to preside over elections.* *The other materials and financial support for elections will be channeled to your Mpesa no. 0704888871 as agreed in the meeting. My secretarial has settled on Spring Park Hotel in Turbo Uasin Gishu County as the venue for the meeting. Kindly inform all your members to avail themselves at the said Venue.* *Note that, our team from Headquarter have already been dispatched to the various venues and do make every effort to have a prior meeting with the team from Nairobi and yourself on the eve of the election date (Wednesday 14th Jan 2026) to work on the joint consultation and agreement going forward.* *In case of any further information or advice, please do not hesitate to contact me. Bro. Soita, Madam Racheal, Madam Ellen or any other direct contact from my office that you may have.* *I have been forced to take this action in accordance to our Constitution Rule 14 Section (d) to be more specific because you have failed without reason to show leadership and as such we cannot afford to hold the Branch at ransom.* *See the attached communication.* *Yours sincerely* *Kenya national private security workers union* *Signed* *Dr. Isaac M Andabwa, Ogw* *NATIONAL GENERAL SECRETARY* *BOARD MEMBER -COTU (K)* *DIRECTOR -PSRA* *COMMITTEE MEMBER – UNI AFRICA* *STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBER -UNI PROPERTY SERVICE, UNI GLOBAL* 1. Rule 14(b) of the 1st Respondent’s Constitution reproduced above provides that notice for a branch general meeting shall state the date, time and place for holding the elections at least fourteen (14) days before the meeting. The notice dated 13th November, 2025 does not state the date, time and place of the elections while the notice dated 13th, January, 2026 is issued two days before the elections. Both notices are addressed to the Branch Secretary and not to members. Both notices therefore do not comply with rule 14(b) of the 1st Respondent’s Constitution. 2. Rule 14(c) of the 1st Respondent’s Constitution further provides for quorum as follows: Quorum The quorum for the Branch General Meeting or Branch Special General Meeting for that matter shall be 2/3 of those entitled to attend and vote thereat. If for any reason the Branch General Meeting is convened two times without forming a quorum, then those attending the third Branch General Meeting shall form quorum notwithstanding and proceed to transact the business of the Branch General Meeting. Any ordinary member wishing to contest a position in the Branch of the Union shall submit a written application in his/her own handwriting at least seven (7) days before the date of the Branch General Meeting. Such an application must receive support form not less than five (5) Chief Shop stewards in the jurisdiction of the Branch. 1. Further, Rule13(xiii) and (xiv) provide that: 2. For any member wishing to vie/contest for the position of Branch Secretary, he/she shall apply in writing to the NEC through the National General Secretary and deposit fifty thousand shilling (Ksh 50,000) to the union’s gazetted account, at least thirty (30) days before election date. The amount deposited is meant to facilitate a meeting for vetting/approval of the candidate. 3. The above condition in (xiii) is not open to persons who are in or have been in active politics in the country. 4. Although the Claimant averred that the Branch Secretary elected at the meeting that allegedly took place of 15th January, 2026 did not comply with Rule 13(xiii), no evidence was adduced by the Respondents of such compliance to controvert the averments of the Claimant. Indeed the nomination forms for members vying for both branch secretary and other offices are dated 15th January, 2026 yet according to Rule 13(xiii) and 14(c) the nomination forms were supposed to have been submitted (30) days for branch secretary and 7 days for other offices before the election date. 5. Further, Rule 6(f)(ii) of the 1st Respondent’s Constitution provides that branch elections shall be supervised by a bonafide officer appointed by the Labour Commissioner or his alternate at the branch or county. The documents produced by the Respondents at pages 87, 88 and 89 of the Respondents bundle indicate that the elections for Uasin Gishu Branch were conducted by Toffic Nalianya, County Labour Officer, Bungoma on 15th January, 2026. There is no evidence of his nomination by the Labour Commissioner or that he was from Uasin Gishu County. This was contrary to Rule 6(f)(ii) of the 1st Respondent’s Constitution. 6. The Claimant alleged that the elections were conducted without quorum, that certain proposers and seconders were not duly recognized shop stewards. No evidence such as membership records or minutes of the meeting with list of attendees were produced by the Respondents to prove that there was quorum and that the proposers and seconders were bona fide shop stewards. The documents produced in respect of the Labour Officer do not include the attendance list which is a crucial document in determining quorum and eligibility of members who attended the meeting. 7. From the foregoing, it is evident that the elections of Eldoret Branch of the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union were carried out in violation of the Union’s constitution as there was no valid notice of the branch elections as per union constitution, no records to show that there was quorum, no evidence that the Labour Officer who presided over the elections was authorized in accordance with the Union constitution and no evidence that all the elected officials were eligible as per union constitution. ***Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought*** 1. The Claimant seeks declarations that the elections conducted on 15th January 2026 were unlawful, irregular and null and void; orders restraining the registration of the officials elected therein; orders restraining the Respondents from interfering with his participation in union affairs and elections; general damages; costs and other consequential reliefs. 2. Having found that the Respondents have failed to prove that the elections conducted on 15th January 2026 were lawful, regular or conducted in accordance with the Union Constitution or the law, I find that the elections were not carried out in accordance with the union constitution. 3. Consequently, the prayer for a declaration that the elections conducted on 15th January 2026 were unlawful, irregular, null and void is merited and is accordingly issued. 4. The prayer seeking to restrain the Registrar of Trade Unions from accepting or registering the officials elected in those elections is unavailable, in view of the fact that the election results were subsequently transmitted to and registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions on 21st January, 2026 pursuant to section 35(2) of the Labour Relations Act. However, the effect of the declaration above is that the elections were null and void and therefore the registration of the officials elected at those elections is also null and void. 5. The Claimant also sought prohibitory orders restraining the Respondents from victimizing, intimidating, coercing, harassing or otherwise interfering with his rights as a union member and prospective candidate for elective office. However, apart from the allegations made in the pleadings, no sufficient evidence was placed before the Court demonstrating any actual or threatened violation of the Claimant's rights warranting the grant of injunctive relief. 6. The prayer for general damages is unmerited as the Claimant did not prove any specific violations of his rights to merit an award of damages. 7. In the result, the Claimant’s Memorandum of Claim dated 16th January 2026 accordingly succeeds to the extent that the Eldoret branch elections carried out on 15th January, 2026 are hereby declared null and void for having been irregular and contrary to the 2nd Respondent’s constitution. 8. The 2nd Respondent shall bear the Claimant’s costs of this suit. **DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED** **ON THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.** **M. ONYANGO** **JUDGE**