https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2418

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. E214 OF 2025 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND LABOUR RIGHTS DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 2(1), 3(1), 19, 20, 22, 23, 25(c), 27(1), 35(1) (b) and 2, 36(1), 41(1) and 2, 47, 50, 258 and 259 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION REGISTERED ON 4TH AUGUST 2021 BY THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS AND IN THE MATTER OF THE UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR TREATMENT OF THE PETITIONER BETWEEN ANTONY OMONDI…………………………………………………………………….…..…………..1ST PETITIONER ESTHER NJERI……………………………………………………………………………………..……..2ND PETITIONER -VERSUS- KENYA CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION.…………………………………………....….……1ST RESPONDENT THE NATIONAL GENERAL SECRETARY, KENYA CHEMICAL WORKERS’ UNION …..…………………………………………..…2ND RESPONDENT THE NATIONAL TREASURER, KENYA CHEMICAL WORKERS’ UNION …..……………………………....……………....3RD RESPONDENT CORAM Before Lady Justice Jemimah Keli C/A Otieno JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners herein, Antony Omondi and Esther Njeri, commenced this suit by a Petition dated 15th October 2025, seeking:- 2. *Refund of the unlawful deductions made from the 1st Petitioners’ allowances from August 2024 to December 2024 amounting to Kshs. 150,000/-.* 3. *Immediate payment of all outstanding allowances owed to the 1st Petitioner from January 2025.* 4. *Immediate payment of the Petitioners allowances of Kshs. 325,000/-, the breakdown being Kshs. 42,500/- for unpaid allowances for attendance of four central council meetings, Kshs. 72,500/- for unpaid allowances for attendance for board finance committee meeting, Kshs. 280,000/- being accumulated monthly allowance for her service as a board executive member for the period from August 2021 to July 2025.* 5. *An order directing that the 1st Petitioner’s mandate as a signatory to the 1st Respondent’s accounts shall not be by passed as long as he continues to hold office as the National chairman of the 1st respondent.* 6. *An order directing that the Petitioners be granted full and unrestricted access to the all Minutes, records and files of Meetings held by the 1st Respondent's Central Council.* 7. *A declaration that the meeting of 26th October 2024 was not a properly constituted central council meeting of the 1st Respondent as per Rule 10 of the 1st Respondent’s Constitution thus the resolutions thereof are not binding on the 1st Respondent.* 8. *An order declaring all actions of the Respondents, emanating from the purported resolution of the meeting of 26th October 2024 as null and void and of no legal effect.* 9. *A Declaration that the only binding resolutions of the 1st Respondent's Central Council shall be the ones emanating from Central Council meetings held in adherence with rule 10 of the Constitution of the 1st Respondent for as long as the said constitution remains in force.* 10. *An order directing that the Petitioners to have full access to all official communication channels of the 1st Respondent including Whatsapp groups.* 11. *An order compelling the 2nd Respondents to avail documentation to the 1st respondents Central Council, detailing the entire sale process that culminated to the transfer of the motor vehicle registration number KBW 632Y into the name of the Deputy General Secretary of the 1st Respondent one Mr. Jacob Odundo.* 12. *An order directing that an audit of the 1st Respondents accounts, assets and liabilities be conducted by Auditors appointed by the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya, at the 1st Respondents expense and the audit report be submitted to the 1st Respondents Central Council within sixty days from the date of judgment.* 13. *Costs of the suit be borne by the Respondents.* 14. The Petition was filed alongside the Supporting Affidavit of the 1st Petitioner sworn on 15th October, with the bundle of documents in support of the Petition attached. 15. In response to the Petition, the Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25th May 2026; and a Replying Affidavit sworn by PETER OUKO ONYANGO on 10th February 2026. Hearing and evidence 1. The petition was canvassed by way of written submissions relying on pleadings and documents; the counsel for the parties highlighted submissions on 24th June 2026. The Petitioner’s case in summary 1. The instant case is a dispute between the 1st Respondent Union’s officials. It is stated that the 1st Respondent Union's governing body is its Central Council. On 20th April 2024, a meeting of the Central Council was held and addressed alleged financial misappropriation of Kshs. 2,000,000/- by the Deputy Secretary General and an alleged irregular sale of the Union's Motor vehicle registration number KBW 632Y to the same Deputy Secretary General, Jacob Odundo. The main issue in controversy in respect of the motor vehicle was its alleged undervaluation from Kshs. 1,200,000/- to Kshs. 700,000. 2. While Minutes of the meeting were recorded as is standard practice, the Petitioners complain that following the meeting, the same were withheld from the 1st Petitioner, who is the 1st Respondent Union’s National Chairman for nine months, only to be availed on 17th January 2025. When the 1st Petitioner was finally furnished with the same, he noted that they selectively omitted the corruption-related discussions concerning the Deputy Secretary General among other discussions, namely: 3. Members had presented an issue of the irregular acquisition of the 1st Respondent's Motor Vehicle registration number KBW 632Y model Toyota Harrier and registration in the name of the Deputy Secretary General after deliberate undervaluation of the same from approximately Kshs. 1,200,000/- to Kshs. 700,000/-. In response to this issue, the 2nd Respondent promised the Central Council that the finance committee would deliberate and come up with a report. These discussions were completely excluded from the minutes and resolution. The 2nd Respondent has also refused to provide documentation on the bidding process for the motor vehicle demonstrating how the said Deputy Secretary General was declared the successful bidder. 4. Members had presented an issue regarding a court case, Nairobi ELRC Cause No. 2119 of 2014 (Kenya Chemical Workers Union vs East African Portland Cement) where the Court award of Kshs. 20,000,000/- was deposited in a joint interest earning account in the names of the parties’ representatives, with the intention that the same would be shared by the parties. An amount of Kshs. 2,000,000/- was withdrawn on behalf of the 1st Respondent but was never paid to its members. Discussions relating to this very serious issue were also omitted from the minutes of 20th April 2024. 5. The issue of the suspension of the 2nd Petitioner had also been discussed, and a resolution passed to the effect that the suspension be lifted unconditionally. This resolution was communicated to the 2nd Petitioner by the 2nd Respondent vide a letter dated 20th April 2024 but all the discussions on this issue were also exclude from the Minutes. 6. It is averred that a subsequent Consultative Central Council Meeting was held on 26th October 2024 by the 2nd Respondent. The Petitioners take issue with the manner in which the meeting was held, in that the same lacked proper notice and an agenda as required by the 1st Respondent Union’s own Constitution. The Consultative Central Council meeting was intended to permit members to discuss matters arising out of the 1st Respondent’s Central Council meeting of 20th April 2024, but the 2nd Respondent prevented the minutes of the said meeting from being read, proposed or adopted, in a bid to curb open discussions on the identified irregularities, despite members’ protests. 7. The Petitioners state that in subsequent days, the 1st Petitioner was pressured to sign off on the sanitized Minutes of the meeting of 20th April 2024; and those of the Consultative Council meeting of 26th October 2024 which also excluded matters of concern such as the reading and adoption of minutes of the previous meeting, but he refused to do so. According to the Petitioners, the consultative meeting of 26th October 2024 was a mere “Kamukunji” as it did not meet the criteria for a Central Council meeting as stipulated by rule 10(b) of the 1st Respondent’s Constitution. 8. Consequently, the Respondents retaliated against the 1st Petitioner by unlawfully subjecting, between August and December 2024, his monthly allowance of Kshs. 83,000/- for serving as National Chairman, to purported tax deductions of Kshs. 30,000/- per month, which deductions were never remitted to the Kenya Revenue Authority. Further, beginning in January 2025, the 1st Petitioner was completely denied the said monthly allowance of Kshs. 83,000/- purportedly on the strength of a resolution passed at the disputed Consultative Meeting held on 26th October 2024. Having failed to meet the threshold for a Central Council meeting by contravening Rule 10 (b) of the 1st Respondent’s Constitution, it is the Petitioners’ case that the Respondents reliance on its resolutions as binding is an abuse of procedure and contrary to the principles of fair administrative action. 9. It is averred that the Petitioners have been subjected to further adverse action, in that the 1st Petitioner has been cut out as a bank signatory of the 1st Respondent despite his office as National Chairman, and has been denied access to Minutes and Resolutions of subsequent Central Council meetings; while the 2nd Respondent, the Vice National Chairman of the 1st Respondent was removed from the union's WhatsApp group, and has been denied monthly allowances totaling Kshs. 325,000/- since 2021. Additionally, the Petitioners complain that the Respondents have refused to carry out transparent audits into the 1st Respondent’s bank accounts, despite calls to do so. 10. The Petitioners plead violations of Articles 10, 20,21, 29(d), 35, 41, 47, 50 (1), 232 and 236 of the Constitution of Kenya; Section 4 of the Access to Information Act; Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Fair Administrative Action Act; Sections 4(2) and 44 of the Labour Relations Act; and Rules 8,9,10 and 17 of the 1st Respondent’s Constitution. Respondent’s case in brief 1. The Respondents oppose the Petition by way of Preliminary Objection on four grounds, namely that: the Petition has been overtaken by events the 1st Respondent’s National Elections having been held and subsequently registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions whose effect is that the Petitioners are no longer officials; that the remedy available to the petitioners is through the Union's constitutional organs and internal dispute resolution mechanisms; that the Petition contravenes the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Trade Union Election Disputes) procedure and practice directions of the Trade Unions Election rules 2025; and that the Petitioners have not pleaded with specificity their rights which have been violated and in what ways they have been violated. The Respondent confirms that the Petitioners currently hold the offices of Branch Officials of their respective branches following the branch elections held at the Mombasa and Athi River branches. 2. The Respondents further state that the payment or non-payment of allowances to union officials is not a constitutional issue, but rather is within the mandate of the Central Council of the Union. Indeed, they aver that the issue of the unpaid allowances was dealt with at the Central Council meeting held on 20th April 2024 which the Petitioner’s participated in, and it was resolved that payment of allowances be placed in abeyance due to the financial difficulties that the 1st Respondent Union was facing as a result of redundancies and loss of members. This resolution affected all officials of the Union rather than just the Petitioners as portrayed. The Respondents emphasize that decisions of the Central Council are binding on the individual officers of the union in accordance with Rule 10 (a) & (g) of the 1st Respondent’s Constitution, and are only subject to review by the National Delegates Conference or Special Delegates Conference. 3. It is averred that the instant Petition is actuated by malice following the retirement and retrenchment of the Petitioners by their employers. 4. On the issue of motor vehicle registration number KBW 632Y, the Respondent states that the same was sold in compliance with due process. Notably, the Executive Board passed a resolution authorizing the sale on 6th April 2023, the National Trustee Committee in their evaluation dated 8th August 2023 recommended that the highest bidder be awarded the opportunity to purchase the same at Kshs. 615,000/- which price was adjusted to Kshs. 700,00/-, and all members and officials of the union were notified through their branch secretaries by a letter dated 4th May 2023. 5. The Respondents deny that the 1st Petitioner was removed as a signatory of the 1st Respondent’s bank account. They explain that his signature is active in the union's bank account through the bank's quick pay system whereby all bank signatories receive authorization through their registered email. As such, according to the Respondents, the Petitioner is at liberty to sign or reject approval forms. 6. On the validity of the Minutes and Resolutions of the Central Council meetings of 20th April 2024 and 26th October 2024, the Respondents aver that most of the Central Council members have sworn affidavits to confirm the same. DETERMINATION 1. Following directions by the court that it would determine the Petition through written submissions, both parties filed. Issues for determination 1. The Petitioners distilled the following issues for determination in their submissions dated 27th April 2026: * + 1. Whether the Petitioners were discriminated upon and their labour rights violated. 2. Whether the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents engaged in abuse of the office of the 1st Respondent. 3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to compensation. 2. The Respondents filed submissions dated 25th May 2026, where they identified the following issues for determination: * + 1. Whether the petition as drafted raises any constitutional issues requiring the Honourable Court's intervention. 2. Whether any of the petitioner's constitutional rights have been breached. 3. Costs. 3. The court discerned the issues for determination to be as follows- 4. Whether the Petitioners were discriminated upon and their labour rights violated. 5. Whether the Petitioners were entitled to relief sought Whether the Petitioners were discriminated upon and their labour rights violated. The petitioners submitted as follows- 1. That the Petitioners' labour rights were discriminated against by the 1st Respondent through the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents. Upon their election as National Chairman and Vice Chairlady in the year 2021, they were entitled to among many other privileges, monthly allowances which were effectively denied to them from the January 2025 while still in active service. We submit that by refusing the Petitioners access to their offices, allowances, union documents and even participation in union activities, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents discriminated upon and grossly violated the labour rights of the Petitioners to participate in union activities. Article 41 of the Constitution 2010 guarantees the right to form and participate in trade unions activities. It provides that; “Every worker has the right-- (a) to fair remuneration; (b) to reasonable working conditions; (c) to form, join or participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union; and (d) to go on strike.” (Emphasis Ours) 6. It is trite Law that every person under the law has the right to a fair hearing. In this instance, we submit that the Petitioners were witch-hunted, illegally ousted out of office and condemned unheard in utter contravention of the principles of natural justice and an outright violation to the right to be heard under the Constitution of Kenya 2010. Article 50 (1) provides as follows: “(1) Every person has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or, if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body.” Consequently, Section 41 of the Employment Act 2007 is very unequivocal on procedures which one may be lawfully removed from office. Courts have often emphasized that the four conditions set in Section 41 are mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. Justice Mbaru, in Kenya Union of Commercial Food And Allied Workers v Meru North Farmers Sacco Limited [2014] eKLR affirmed this position and held that “Section 41 of the Employment Act is couched in mandatory terms. Where an employer fails to follow these mandatory provisions, whatever outcome of the process is bound to be unfair as the affected employee has not been accorded a hearing in the presence of their union representative. The situation is dire where such an employee is terminated after such a flawed process of hearing as such termination is ultimately unfair.” We further submit that refusal by the 2nd and 3rd Defendant to remit the allowances of the Petitioners while remitting those of the rest amounted to discrimination, contravened the law and violated their rights under the Constitution. Further, we submit that the 2nd Petitioner was unfairly targeted due to her gender in a field fallaciously perceived as male dominated. Article 27 provides as follows: (1) Every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law. (2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms. (3) Women and men have the right to equal treatment, including the right to equal opportunities in political, economic, cultural and social spheres. (4) The State shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground, including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth. (5) A person shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against another person on any of the grounds specified or contemplated in clause (4). 2. Conversely, the respondent submitted as follows- The petition is allegedly brought under the provisions of Articles 2(1), 3(1), 19, 20, 22, 23, 259e), 27(1), 35(1)b and 2, 36(1), 4(1) and (2), 47, 50, 250 and 259 of the Constitution of Kenya. C: The Respondent strenuously opposes the petition and relies fully on the affidavit sworn by Peter Ouko Onyango on 10th February, 2026 together with all the annextures thereto. That at the outset we invite the Honourable Court to determine whether the purported petition is properly grounded in law. To this end, we have filed and served a notice of preliminary objection on a point of law, to wit, whether the petition raises any breach of fundamental rights and freedoms under the Constitution to enable this Honourable Court's intervention. We will further invite the Honourable Court to determine whether or not the petition herein has been overtaken by events in view of the fact that the two petitioners were not successful in their quest to be elected as the National Chairman of the Union. The prayers they are seeking to the effect that they should be allowed to access the union's accounts and documentation cannot be sustained. That it is a well-established point of law that the Honourable Courts cannot act in vain. The petitioners having lost their positions in the union through a competitive election after their term of five (5) years had elapsed cannot in law seek orders whose effect are for academic value. A court of law cannot issue orders with a nugatory effect. 3. The respondent submitted on merit of the case as follows- It is an established principle of the law that for one to succeed in a constitutional petition alleging breach of the fundamental rights, one must plead with particularity the Article or Section of the Constitution which has been breached and in what manner the fundamental rights and freedoms have been violated. A perusal of the petition and the supporting affidavit of the 1st Petitioner discloses no constitutional rights have been breached. What we have are petty grievances and feuds of trade union officials which the petitioners are unfortunately trying to elevate to a constitutional petition to justify the Honourable Court's intervention. The Petitioners' grievances are matters which can be handled by the Union's organs namely the Finance Committee, the National Executive Council, the Central Council and/or the Delegates Conference. The petitioners have regrettably blatantly failed to present their petty grievances to any of the above trade union organs for deliberation and possible redress. In the event of the Petitioners' dissatisfaction of the outcome by the Union's organs, the petitioners have a right to escalate the same to the relevant offices like the Registrar of Trade Unions. Any approach to this Honourable Court should have been by way of a statement of claim whereby evidence by the petitioners will be tested by way of cross-examination. Your Ladyship, the alleged grievances by the Petitioners have been successfully addressed in the Replying Affidavit of particular note is the attachments in paragraph 19 of the replying affidavit of Peter Ouko Onyango whereby he has annexed several affidavits from the members of the Central Council members who have confirmed attending the Central Council meetings held on 20th April 2024 and 26th October 2024. They have COSTS: also endorsed the resolutions of the meeting held on 15th November, 2025 which they have endorsed, ratified and confirmed the minutes. Your Ladyship, looking at the totality of this petition there is one inescapable conclusion that the same is for dismissal. The prayers sought cannot be granted. Decision ### The right not to be discriminated against is under Article 27 of the Constitution, to wit- ‘**27. Equality and freedom from discrimination** 1. (1)Every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.(2)Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms.(3)Women and men have the right to equal treatment, including the right to equal opportunities in political, economic, cultural and social spheres.(4)The State shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground, including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth.(5)A person shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against another person on any of the grounds specified or contemplated in clause (4).’In Gichuru v Package Insurance Brokers Ltd [2021] KESC 12 (KLR), the Supreme Court held at paragraphs 6 and 54 of its judgment that: "Paragraph 6 - Discrimination involved treating someone less favourably because of their possession of an attribute such as race, sex, religion compared to someone without that attribute in the same circumstances. Paragraph 51 - Discrimination can be said to have occurred where a person is treated differently from other persons who are in similar positions on the basis of one of the prohibited grounds like race, sex disability etc or due to unfair practice and without any objective and reasonable justification". In Peter K Waweru v Republic [2006] eKLR, the court held that: "Discrimination also means unfair treatment or denial of normal privileges to a failure to treat all persons equally persons because of their race, age, sex where no reasonable distinction can be found between those favoured and those not favoured". 2. The petitioners alleged discrimination in the non-payment of allowances and in being prevented from participating in union activities. The 1st petitioner was then the national chairman but was replaced in 2026 elections. The 2nd petitioner was the vice national chairman. They both alleged unpaid allowances while in service in those capacities and were discriminated against by being removed from the 1st respondent’s WhatsApp group, thus denying them access to information in the group. The petition was filed on 15th October 2025. 3. The 2nd respondent , Ouko, in replying affidavit stated as follows - THAT the union's constitution has an elaborate mechanism of addressing all the issues the Petitioners have presented before the Honourable Court and since the Petitioners have not invoked and exhausted the internal mechanisms of resolving disputes then it follows that this matter is not justifiable. THAT the payment or nonpayment of allowances to the union officials is not a constitutional issue. THAT the payment of allowance, salaries to the National officials and Branch officials of the Trade Union is within the mandate of the Central Council of the union. THAT the decisions of the Central Council are binding on the individual officers of the union in accordance with rule 10(a) & (g) and such decisions can only be reviewed by the National Delegates Conference or Special Delegates Conference. THAT the issues raised by the Petitioners regarding allowances is a matter which was dealt with at the Central Council meeting held on 20th April 2024 at Central Park Nairobi in which meeting the Petitioners duly attended and participated. Attached herewith and marked as exhibit “PO1" are true copies of the minutes and resolutions made at the said meeting. THAT the stoppage of allowances to the National Officials affected all the officials and was not confined to the Petitioners as alleged herein. This was done due to the union's dire financial strain brought about by low income to the union due to the redundancies and loss of members. THAT the actions by the Petitioners to bring this petition before the Honourable Court was actuated by malice after being retired and retrenched by their employers respectively. Attached herewith and marked as exhibit "PO2" and "PO3" are true copies of the letters. THAT the Petitioners have since been as Branch Officials of their respective branches following the branch elections held at Mombasa and Athi River branch respectively. Attached herewith and marked as exhibit "PO4" and "PO5" are true letters and extract from the Registrar of Trade Unions confirming the said changes. 4. The court, on perusal of the minutes dated 15th November 2025, finds that both petitioners attended and participated in the meeting of the central union held on 20th April 2024, where the issue of allowances was discussed. The 1st petitioner signed the minutes as the National Chairman. The court finds it disingenuous for him to allege that the minutes were not a true record, yet he signed them willingly. The minutes indicate that the issue of taxation of allowances was discussed as follows-‘The National General Secretary informed the meeting that the Union has been advised by professionals and auditors that all allowances must be taxed. Brother Odongo supported the sentiments of the General Secretary, stating that every allowance must be taxed unless the word allowance was abolished and the same be renamed to transport reimbursement or as may be agreed by the meeting. He, in his report, proposed a flat rate of payment of transport reimbursement at Kshs.10,000 to all board members and Kshs.2,000 for central council members per month, respectively. He stated that such allowances should not exceed Kshs.160,000 per month, citing the Union’s financial position. He said that for any other additional responsibility, a responsibility allowance be paid. Brother Peterlis asked what would happen to those earning higher allowances than proposed. The meeting agreed that formation of the finance committee would assist, where the committee will look at the Union finances and budget and give their report.’’ (PO1) The returns for elections by the Registrar of Trade Unions, dated 20th January 2026, indicate that the petitioners are no longer in office of the branches Bamburi and Athi River. They were in office before the elections. 5. The respondent produced a resolution of 15th November 2025, which states as follows-‘National Chairman and National Vice Chairman have sued the Union to court under PETITION E214/2026; therefore, they shall not undertake any official duties of the Union.’ In the mind of the court, this was evidence of the exclusion of the petitioners from union activities for suing the Union in the instant petition. The respondent did not justify this action. The petitioners were elected officials. By this resolution, the respondents discriminated against the petitioners for the exercise of their right to sue for violation of rights. The petitioners exercised their right of Access to Justice (Article 48, Constitution of Kenya): Every individual—including a trade union official or member—has a constitutional right to have any legal dispute resolved by an independent tribunal or court. Suspending or excluding an official for initiating litigation penalizes the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. Freedom of Association & Trade Union Rights (Article 41 & Section 4, LRA): Under the LRA, members and officials are protected from victimization, discrimination, or disciplinary prejudice arising from exercising their rights under the law or participating in union disputes. Section 4 of the LRA states— ‘4. Employee’s right to freedom of association’ (1)Every employee has the right to—(a)participate in forming a trade union or federation of trade unions;(b)join a trade union; or(c)leave a trade union.(2)Every member of a trade union has the right, subject to the constitution of that trade union to—(a)participate in its lawful activities;(b)participate in the election of its officials and representatives;(c)stand for election and be eligible for appointment as an officer or official and, if elected or appointed, to hold office; and(d)stand for election or seek for appointment as a trade union representative and, if elected or appointed, to carry out the functions of a trade union representative in accordance with the provisions of this Act or a collective agreement.(3)Every member of a trade union that is a member of a federation of trade unions has the right, subject to the constitution of that federation to—(a)participate in its lawful activities;(b)participate in the election of any of its office bearers or officials; and(c)stand for election or seek for appointment as an office bearer or official and, if elected or appointed, to hold office.’ 1. While a union’s registered constitution typically mandates that members exhaust internal dispute resolution procedures before taking the union to court, failure to do so does not give executive committees free license to unilaterally "exclude" or suspend an official without strict administrative fairness. In the upshot the court came to the conclusion that the respondents discriminated against the petitioners by excluding them from union activities on account of the instant suit. Whether the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents engaged in abuse of the office of the 1st Respondent 1. The petitioner submitted as follows- It is our submissions that the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents have engaged in gross abuse of the office of the 1st Respondent. . In this case your Ladyship, the abuse of office by the 2nd and 3rd Respondent occurred by way of failure to adhere to procurement procedures, misappropriation of funds, and failed democracy. . In one isolated and demonstrated instance, the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents, went ahead and sold the Union’s vehicle Registration Number KBW 632Y without following proper procurement procedures. The Union’s Constitution provides that such sale should first be sanctioned by the Finance and Management Committee which is chaired by the National Chairman and adopted and approved by the Central Council. This is, therefore, followed by an open bid and the property is sold through a public auction. There is not even, an iota of proof that the said vehicle was ever paid for as there was no cheque or any mode of payment that has been adduced as evidence before this Honourable Court. Similarly, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have heavily engaged in misappropriation of the union funds by drawing and spending huge chunks of money on endeavors that do not align with the union’s agenda and activities. The court found that the petitioners were in the meeting of the central council where matters of finance and the sale of the said motor vehicle were discussed. The 1st petitioner signed the minutes. Among the resolution was –‘Start transfer process for Union old vehicle KBW 632Y documents to brother Jacob Odundo who has made full payment of Kshs.700,000.’’ I find the claims not founded and in any case there was no evidence of exhaustion of the internal mechanism of the union and the registrar of unions. Indeed the role of the registrar is recognized under section 41(1)of the labour Relations Act as follows-‘1)The Employment and Labour Relations Court may grant an injunction restraining unauthorized or unlawful expenditure of the funds of a trade union, employer’s organisation or federation on application by the Registrar, or by five or more persons having a sufficient interest in the relief sought.’ The petitioners ought to report the allegations of unlawful expenditure of the union funds to the Registrar in the first instant and only the registrar or 5 or more people may seek injunction on the spending. Before me are only 2 people. The claim fails. Whether the petitioner are entitled to relief sought. 1. The petitioners sought for various reliefs- 2. *Refund of the unlawful deductions made from the 1st Petitioners allowances from August 2024 to December 2024 amounting to Kshs. 150,000/-.* 3. *Immediate payment of all outstanding allowances owed to the 1st Petitioner from January 2025.* 4. *Immediate payment of the Petitioners allowances of Kshs. 325,000/-, the breakdown being Kshs. 42,500/- for unpaid allowances for attendance of four central council meetings, Kshs. 72,500/- for unpaid allowances for attendance for board finance committee meeting, Kshs. 280,000/- being accumulated monthly allowance for her service as a board executive member for the period from August 2021 to July 2025.* On the allowances, the court directs the union to within 30 days pay all outstanding allowances to the petitioners. The court finds that taxes are due as required under the law. 1. *An order directing that the 1st Petitioner’s mandate as a signatory to the 1st Respondent’s accounts shall not be by passed as long as he continues to hold office as the National chairman of the 1st respondent.* I find the issue is overtaken by events, elections having been held and the Petitioners replaced as National Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively. 2. *An order directing that the Petitioners be granted full and unrestricted access to the all Minutes, records and files of Meetings held by the 1st Respondent's Central Council.* The petitioners are no longer in office thus the prayer is declined. 3. *A declaration that the meeting of 26th October 2024 was not a properly constituted central council meeting of the 1st Respondent as per Rule 10 of the 1st Respondent’s Constitution thus the resolutions thereof are not binding on the 1st Respondent.* The court finds that is an internal matter within the internal mechanism of the union. It is not a constitutional issue. 4. *An order declaring all actions of the Respondents, emanating from the purported resolution of the meeting of 26th October 2024 as null and void and of no legal effect.* The court finds that is an internal matter within the internal mechanism of the union. It is not a constitutional issue. 5. *A Declaration that the only binding resolutions of the 1st Respondent's Central Council shall be the ones emanating from Central Council meetings held in adherence with rule 10 of the Constitution of the 1st Respondent for as long as the said constitution remains in force*. The court finds that is an internal matter within the internal mechanism of the union. It is not a constitutional issue. 6. *An order directing that the Petitioners to have full access to all official communication channels of the 1st Respondent including Whatsapp groups. Exclusion of the petitioners was held as discriminatory.* The court returns thatif the petitioners are members they be granted access to the members social media groups. 7. *An order compelling the 2nd Respondents to avail documentation to the 1st respondents Central Council, detailing the entire sale process that culminated to the transfer of the motor vehicle registration number KBW 632Y into the name of the Deputy General Secretary of the 1st Respondent one Mr. Jacob Odundo.* The prayer is disallowed as the sale was ratified by the central council. 8. *An order directing that an audit of the 1st Respondents accounts, assets and liabilities be conducted by Auditors appointed by the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya, at the 1st Respondents expense and the audit report be submitted to the 1st Respondents Central Council within sixty days from the date of judgment.* The prayer disallowed as the petitioners did not meet the legal threshold as held above. 9. In the upshot the court held the petitioners were discriminated against by being excluded from the union activities on account of the instant case. The court held they be paid the lawful outstanding allowances of their sitting as National Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively within 30 days and that they be granted access to the union members' social media account, including WhatsApp, if still members. The petitioners are awarded costs of the petition payable by the 1st respondent. 10. It is so Ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026. JEMIMAH KELI, JUDGE. IN THE PRESENCE OF: Court Assistant: Otieno Petitioners- Okiro Respondents: Nyabena