https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1625

Saina v Kenya Union Commercial Food and Allied Workers (Petition E008 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1625 (KLR) (12 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1625 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret Petition E008 of 2025 MA Onyango, J June 12, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 2,10,22,23,41,47 AND 258 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT,2007 AND THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT,2015 AND IN THE MATTER OF CONTRAVENTION OF THE KENYA UNION OF COMMERCIAL FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS CONSTITUTION SECTIONS Between Wesley Langat Saina Petitioner and Kenya Union Commercial Food and Allied Workers Respondent Judgment The Petition 1.The Petitioner is described in the Petition as the duly elected Branch Secretary of the Respondent, having been elected on 9th January 2021 for a five-year term. 2.The Respondent is a registered trade union under the Labour Relations Act. 3.The Petitioner filed the instant petition dated 5th June 2025 against the Respondent invoking various Articles of the Constitution and sections of the Fair Administrative Action Act seeking the following reliefs:a.A declaration that the purported dissolution of the Nandi Branch of the Respondent and the resultant declaration of redundancy of the Petitioner were unconstitutional, unlawful, and null and void.b.A declaration that the Petitioner remains the duly elected Branch Secretary of the Nandi Branch for the unexpired term ending in January 2026.c.An order of judicial review in the nature of certiorari, quashing the decision by the Respondent's General Secretary made on or about 27th July 2023.d.An order of judicial review in the nature of prohibition, restraining the Respondent from interfering with the Petitioner's exercise of his elective office.e.An order of permanent injunction, restraining the Respondent, its agents, or servants from appointing or electing any person to the position of Branch Secretary, Nandi Branch, during the subsistence of the Petitioner's term.f.Damages compensationg.In the alternative and without prejudice to the prayers above the respondent be and is hereby directed and/or ordered to make salary payment to the petitioner of the expired term of service effective date of the alleged redundancy.h.Costs of the Petition.i.Any other relief this Honourable Court may deem just and expedient. 4.The basis of the Petition is that on 27th July 2023, the Respondent’s General Secretary issued a communication declaring the Petitioner “redundant” on grounds that the Nandi Branch had allegedly been dissolved. 5.The Petitioner contends that the purported dissolution of the Nandi Branch and consequent declaration of redundancy were done without any notice, consultation or due process and in total disregard of the Respondent’s Constitution. 6.It is the Petitioner’s contention that the Respondent’s Constitution does not envisage or provide for declaring elected officials redundant, nor does it confer unilateral powers upon the General Secretary to dissolve a branch without the participation of relevant organs or members. The Respondent’s case 7.The Respondent opposed the Petition through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 31st October 2025 by Mike O. Oranga, its National Organizing Secretary. He deponed that by the year 2022, several branches of the Respondent had become unsustainable due to declining membership, resulting in their inability to meet administrative and operational costs. 8.The Respondent contends that the Nandi Branch, under the leadership of the Petitioner, failed to submit progress reports that would have identified opportunities for growth and strategies for improving membership levels. 9.According to the Respondent, the issue of declining branch membership was deliberated upon during a National Executive Council (NEC) meeting held on 7th and 8th October 2022, at which the National Organizing Secretary tabled a report on branch membership levels. It is averred that pursuant to those deliberations, the NEC resolved that all underperforming branches be issued with a six-month notice requiring them to undertake aggressive recruitment efforts, failing which they would be closed or merged. 10.The Respondent avers that upon the expiry of the six-month period, the Nandi Branch had not recruited any additional members and as a consequence, the Petitioner vide a letter dated 5th July 2023, was invited to the Head Office to explain the branch's failure to improve its membership and to submit the requisite progress reports. 11.The Respondent asserts that the Petitioner failed to present any viable plan for improving membership levels at the Nandi Branch. 12.The Respondent further states that, during the NEC meeting held on 10th and 11th May 2023 under Minute MIN/NEC/003/2023, it was resolved that seven underperforming branches, including the Nandi Branch, be disbanded and dissolved and that following that resolution, the Respondent notified the Registrar of Trade Unions on 27th July 2023 that the Nandi Branch had been disbanded pursuant to the NEC resolution. 13.It is contended that the registration of the branch was subsequently cancelled and it ceased to exist in law. That the few members in the Nandi Branch were transferred to Eldoret Branch to ensure continuity of representation. 14.It is the Respondent’s position that other underperforming branches that had demonstrated potential for growth were afforded an opportunity to continue improving their membership levels. 15.The Respondent maintains that, prior to the NEC's decision to disband the non performing branch, all underperforming branches, including the Nandi Branch, had been invited to meetings at the Head Office to explore possible measures for salvaging them from closure or merger. 16.According to the Respondent, despite these efforts, the Nandi Branch failed to attain the minimum membership threshold required under Rule 26 of the Respondent’s Constitution. 17.The Respondent asserts that the Petitioner has not produced any evidence demonstrating that the Nandi Branch met the membership threshold prescribed under Rule 26 or that the Petitioner submitted the reports requested by the Head Office. 18.It is further contended that the Petitioner has not furnished a membership register evidencing the strength of the Nandi Branch or any report identifying potential areas for membership recruitment and growth. 19.The Respondent therefore maintains that the Nandi Branch was lawfully dissolved and upon its dissolution, ceased to exist. 20.The Respondent further avers that section 30 of the Labour Relations Act provides a specific appellate mechanism for persons aggrieved by decisions of the Registrar, requiring such appeals to be lodged before the Employment and Labour Relations Court within thirty (30) days of the decision. It is the Respondent’s position that the Petitioner failed to avail himself of that statutory remedy and is now seeking to circumvent the prescribed procedure by challenging the dissolution indirectly through the present Petition. 21.In response to the allegation made by the Petitioner that his constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms were violated, the Respondent avers that the process leading to the dissolution of the Nandi Branch was lawful, fair and in compliance with both the Labour Relations Act and the Respondent's Constitution. It is the Respondent’s position that following the dissolution of the Nandi Branch, the office of Branch Secretary became redundant and the Petitioner's employment consequently came to an end by operation of redundancy. 22.The Respondent maintains that the redundancy process was conducted in full compliance with section 40 of the Employment Act. It avers that the Petitioner was duly notified of the closure of the branch and the consequent declaration of redundancy, following which his terminal dues were computed and paid on 24th and 27th July 2023. The Respondent further contends that the Petitioner accepted the said payments without raising any objection or complaint. 23.The Respondent further states that salaries are payable only for work performed and that, following the Petitioner's redundancy, he rendered no further services for which salary could accrue. In addition, it is contended that by accepting his redundancy benefits, the Petitioner's contract of employment was lawfully terminated. 24.In the end, the Respondent urged the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs as no evidence has been presented to establish unfair termination. The Rejoinder 25.In response to the Replying Affidavit, the Petitioner filed a Further Affidavit sworn on 27th November 2025 in which he maintained that he was validly elected as the Nandi Branch Secretary on 9th January 2021 in accordance with the Respondent's Constitution then in force. 26.The Petitioner avers that, at the time of his election, the applicable Constitution required a branch to have a minimum membership of 300 members and that the Nandi Branch met that threshold. 27.The Petitioner, in response to the Respondent's averment that the decline in membership at the Nandi Branch was attributable to his failure to recruit members, contended that the responsibility for recruiting and organising members was vested, under the Union Constitution, in the office of the National Organising Secretary and branch organisers operating under that office, and not in the office of the Branch Secretary. 28.He further stated that throughout his tenure he was the only elected official physically serving the Nandi Branch, which covered the entire Nandi County. According to him, the Respondent failed to provide the branch with clerical, secretarial or administrative support despite his repeated requests for such assistance. 29.The Petitioner contends that the Respondent neither deployed organizers to the branch nor provided adequate financial and logistical support to facilitate recruitment efforts. The Petitioner states that the Respondent cannot lawfully attribute the decline in membership to him while at the same time withholding the resources necessary to sustain and expand the branch. 30.It is the Petitioner’s case that the Nandi Branch met the constitutional membership threshold at the time of his election and that the Respondent's attempt to hold him responsible for the subsequent decline in membership is an afterthought intended to justify the dissolution of the branch. 31.He avers that, following the 9th January 2021 elections, the Respondent amended its Constitution and increased the minimum membership threshold for branches from 300 to 600 members. The Petitioner maintains that the amendment could not operate retrospectively so as to invalidate his election or curtail his five-year term of office, which had accrued under the previous constitutional framework. 32.The Petitioner further contends that the Respondent unlawfully relied on the amended membership threshold to declare his position redundant. According to him, the office he occupied was a constitutional and elective office which could not lawfully be abolished without strict adherence to due process, procedural fairness and the rules of natural justice. 33.It is the Petitioner’s case that he was never invited to any meeting of the National Executive Council at which the dissolution of the Nandi Branch was discussed or approved. He maintains that, had he been afforded an opportunity to participate, he would have opposed the proposed dissolution and challenged the application of the amended constitutional provisions to elected branch officials. 34.He further avers that upon becoming aware of efforts to increase the membership threshold and apply it to elected officials, he lodged a formal protest with the Respondent and that he only became aware of the dissolution of the Nandi Branch on 1st August 2023 when he was informed that the branch had been dissolved. He contends that the decision was made without prior notice, consultation or an opportunity for him to be heard. 35.The Petitioner therefore asserts that the dissolution of the branch violated Articles 41, 47, 48 and 50 of the Constitution as well as the principles of natural justice and fair administrative action. 36.The Petitioner further denies that he was ever directed by the Secretary General or any national official of the Union to undertake membership recruitment. He reiterates that the office of Branch Secretary was primarily administrative and liaison in nature and did not carry constitutional responsibility for recruitment activities. He avers that despite the lack of support from the Respondent, he personally made efforts to recruit new members within Nandi County. 37.The Petitioner consequently maintains that the allegations levelled against him regarding membership decline are unfounded and were merely intended to justify what he considers to have been an unlawful dissolution of the branch. 38.It is the Petitioner’s case that the Respondent's actions violated the Union Constitution, the Labour Relations Act, the principles of legitimate expectation and the security of tenure accorded to elected trade union officials. 39.The Petitioner therefore maintains that the officials elected on 9th January 2021 were entitled to serve their full five-year term and could not lawfully be removed through the dissolution of the branch without compliance with the applicable constitutional and statutory requirements. In this regard, he maintains that the entire process resulting to the dissolution of the Nandi Branch was unlawful, irregular and unconstitutional. 40.Consequently, the Petitioner urged the Court to allow the Petition and grant the reliefs as sought therein. 41.Pursuant to the directions of the Court issued on 1st December 2025, the Petition was canvassed by way of written submissions, with both parties duly filing their respective submissions. Submissions 42.In his written submissions dated 9th February 2026, the Petitioner identified the following issues for determination:i.Whether the Respondent's decision to dissolve the Nandi Branch and declare the Petitioner redundant violated Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitutionii.Whether the Respondent acted ultra vires its Constitution and the Labour Relations Actiii.Whether the Petitioner was denied the right to fair administrative action under the Fair Administrative Action Activ.Whether amendments to the Union Constitution could lawfully apply retrospectively to invalidate an elected official's termv.Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought. 43.On the first issue, the Petitioner submitted that he was validly elected as the Nandi Branch Secretary on 9th January 2021 for a fixed term of five years ending in January 2026 and that his election was conducted pursuant to the Respondent's Constitution and was duly recognized by the Registrar of Trade Unions in accordance with sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Labour Relations Act. 44.In this regard, the Petitioner submitted that his removal from office before the expiry of his term, without disciplinary proceedings or lawful justification violated Article 41 of the Constitution and section 4 of the Labour Relations Act which requires trade unions to operate democratically and in accordance with their constitutions. 45.The Petitioner further submitted that elected trade union officials enjoy constitutional and statutory protection and that the Respondent could not lawfully interfere with his tenure in office. 46.In challenging the Respondent's reliance on redundancy as a basis for terminating his tenure, the Petitioner submitted that redundancy under sections 2 and 40 of the Employment Act applies to employees serving under contracts of service and not to elected constitutional office holders. On this basis, he argued that his office as Branch Secretary was created by the Union Constitution and could not be lawfully abolished through a redundancy process. He therefore submitted that the termination of his position on account of redundancy was legally untenable. 47.On whether the Respondent acted ultra vires, the Petitioner submitted that a registered trade union is bound by its registered Constitution and the provisions of the Labour Relations Act. He argued that the Respondent's Constitution did not confer upon the Secretary General unilateral authority to dissolve a branch, abolish a constitutional office or remove an elected official. Accordingly, he maintained that the impugned decision was made without legal authority and was therefore null and void. 48.The Petitioner further submitted that the Respondent's reliance on amendments to the Union Constitution increasing the minimum branch membership threshold from 300 to 600 members was misplaced on the basis that constitutional and statutory instruments do not ordinarily operate retrospectively so as to divest accrued rights, impose new obligations or alter completed legal relationships unless such intention is expressly stated. 49.According to the Petitioner, he acquired a vested right to serve a five-year term upon his election on 9th January 2021 under the constitutional framework then in force. He submitted that the subsequent amendment increasing the membership threshold could not retrospectively invalidate elections already conducted or curtail the tenure of officials elected under the previous constitutional regime. 50.The Petitioner also invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation and submitted that by organizing the elections, recognizing his election, forwarding the election results to the Registrar of Trade Unions and permitting him to serve as Branch Secretary, the Respondent represented that he would serve his full five-year term subject only to lawful removal in accordance with the Union Constitution and the law. 51.It was his submission that the Respondent's decision to dissolve the branch and terminate his tenure without notice, consultation or a hearing defeated that legitimate expectation and amounted to arbitrary and oppressive conduct inconsistent with the values of fairness, reasonableness and justice. 52.With regard to the third issue, the Petitioner relying on Article 47 of the Constitution submitted that constitutional standards apply not only to public bodies but also to private and voluntary associations, including trade unions, whenever they exercise powers that affect the rights, interests or legitimate expectations of members and officials. 53.Further, relying on section 4 and 7 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, the Petitioner submitted that the law required the Respondent to provide him with prior notice of the intended action, reasons for the proposed decision, disclosure of relevant material, an opportunity to be heard and information regarding any available review or appeal mechanisms. 54.It is the Petitioner's submission that none of those procedural safeguards were observed as he was never notified of the intended dissolution of the Nandi Branch, was never informed of the allegations against him, was never invited to participate in the deliberations leading to the impugned decision and was never afforded an opportunity to present his case before the decision was made. He maintained that the decision was communicated to him only after it had already been implemented. 55.On the issue whether amendments to the Union Constitution could lawfully apply retrospectively to invalidate an elected official's term, the Petitioner submitted that the dissolution of an entire branch and the resultant removal of a duly elected official constituted far-reaching measures which could only be lawfully undertaken following strict adherence to constitutional, statutory, and internal procedural requirements. He argued that amendments to the Union Constitution could not be applied retrospectively to invalidate or curtail the tenure of an elected official. 56.The Petitioner therefore urged the Court to find that the Respondent acted unlawfully, unfairly, irrationally and in excess of its powers and to grant the reliefs sought in the Petition. 57.On its part, the Respondent in its written submissions dated 10th March 2026 submitted that the National Executive Council (NEC) is the governing and administrative organ of the Union pursuant to Rule 11(a) of its Constitution and is vested with the responsibility of formulating and implementing the Union's administrative policies. The Respondent submitted that under Rule 11(e) of its Constitution, decisions of the NEC are binding upon all officials and members of the Union and that any person aggrieved by such decisions has a right of appeal to the National Delegates Conference or the Special Delegates Conference. 58.The Respondent submitted that Rule 26(1)(a) of its Constitution requires every branch to maintain a minimum membership of six hundred (600) members and that Rule 26(1)(b) empowers the NEC to suspend or disband any branch whose membership falls below that threshold. 59.It is the Respondent’s submission that the Nandi Branch had, for a considerable period, operated below the prescribed membership threshold and lacked any meaningful evidence of active membership, as evidenced by the absence of check-off subscriptions. The Respondent further submits that the Petitioner failed to place before the Court any check-off forms, membership records, or other documentary evidence demonstrating the existence of active members or the remittance of union dues. 60.The Respondent submitted that the issue of declining membership at the Nandi Branch had been raised with the Petitioner on several occasions, but no significant improvement was achieved. The Respondent further contended that despite the branch's poor performance, it continued to bear the costs of its operations, including salaries, allowances and office rent. 61.The Respondent further submitted that following the National Executive Council (NEC) meeting held on 7th and 8th October 2022, at which it was resolved that the Nandi Branch, among other underperforming branches, be dissolved, the decision was communicated to the Registrar of Trade Unions, who subsequently cancelled the branch's registration. The Respondent contended that the Petitioner was thereafter informed of both the closure of the branch and the reasons underpinning that decision. It was the Respondent’s position that the Petitioner had been afforded adequate opportunity to address the membership concerns before the closure was effected and was therefore accorded fair administrative action. 62.With regard to the Petitioner's averment that he was validly elected as Branch Secretary and could not, on that account, be removed from office, the Respondent submitted that the validity of the election conducted on 9th January 2021 was not in dispute. However, it contended that election to office did not insulate the Petitioner from accountability or exempt him from compliance with the constitutional requirements governing branch operations. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner's election could not shield the Nandi Branch from closure where the branch had ceased to meet the minimum membership threshold prescribed under the Union Constitution. 63.The Respondent further submitted that Rule 26 of its Constitution confers upon the NEC an independent mandate to suspend or disband branches whose membership falls below the prescribed threshold and that the exercise of that mandate is not dependent upon the term of office of branch officials. 64.On whether there was procedural fairness , the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner was aware of the membership concerns affecting the branch, that a six-month period was granted to address those concerns and that the Petitioner was subsequently invited to attend a meeting and present any material that could justify the continued existence of the branch. It was therefore argued that the requirements of procedural fairness were satisfied. 65.In response to the Petitioner's contention that the Respondent had retrospectively applied amendments to the Union Constitution, the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner was a delegate at the National Delegates Conference held on 20th February 2021, during which the amendments to the Constitution were deliberated upon, approved, and adopted. The Respondent contended that upon the adoption of the amended Constitution, the previous Constitution ceased to have legal effect and could no longer be relied upon as the governing instrument of the Union. 66.The Respondent further submitted that the decision to close the Nandi Branch was made in May 2023 under the constitutional framework then in force and not under the repealed Constitution. The Respondent thus argued that the applicable Constitution prescribed a minimum membership threshold of six hundred members and expressly authorized the closure of branches that failed to meet that threshold. 67.The Respondent also challenged the authenticity of the membership register annexed to the Petitioner's further affidavit and submitted that the register contained numerous irregularities, omissions and inconsistencies, including missing dates of admission, absence of records of entrance fees, blank pages, duplicated entries and incomplete details regarding the alleged members.According to the Respondent, those deficiencies rendered the register unreliable as proof of branch membership. 68.The Respondent further argued that even if the register was to be considered it reflected only 237 members, a figure that fell substantially below both the former threshold of 300 members and the current threshold of 600 members. Accordingly, it submitted that the register did not support the Petitioner's claim that the branch satisfied the constitutional requirements necessary for its continued existence. 69.Regarding the declaration of the Petition as redundant, the Respondent submitted that following the lawful closure of the Nandi Branch and cancellation of its registration, there was no remaining role for a Branch Secretary to perform. The Respondent therefore maintained that the Petitioner's services became superfluous and his position was properly declared redundant. It is the Respondent’s submission that the Petitioner accepted redundancy benefits amounting to Kshs. 534,190 without protest or reservation and thereby discharged the employment relationship between himself and the Respondent. According to the Respondent, having accepted the terminal benefits without objection, the Petitioner could not subsequently challenge the termination of his engagement. 70.The Respondent further submitted that the Petitioner failed to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanisms established under Rule 11(e) of the Union Constitution. It argued that any official dissatisfied with a decision of the NEC is obligated to appeal to the National Delegates Conference or a Special Delegates Conference before seeking judicial intervention. The Respondent contended that the Petitioner neither challenged nor appealed the NEC’s decision through the available internal processes and, as such, the present Petition is premature, incompetent, and unsustainable. 71.Consequently, the Court was urged to dismiss the Petition with costs. Determination 72.Having carefully considered the Petition, the response thereto, the further affidavit and the rival submissions on record, the issues that fall for determination are: -i.Whether the decision to dissolve the Nandi Branch and the consequent declaration of the Petitioner redundant were lawful and procedurally fair.ii.Whether the Petitioner's constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights guaranteed under Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution, were violated.iii.Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought. Whether the decision to dissolve the Nandi Branch and the consequent declaration of the Petitioner redundant were lawful and procedurally fair 73.The Petitioner’s case is that the dissolution of the Nandi Branch and the subsequent declaration of his position redundant were unlawful, unconstitutional and in violation of the Respondent's Constitution. He contends that he was validly elected as Branch Secretary on 9th January 2021 for a term of five years and that the Respondent unlawfully relied on constitutional amendments introduced after his election to dissolve the branch and terminate his tenure. 74.The Respondent on the other hand, maintains that the branch had failed to meet the membership threshold prescribed under the applicable Constitution and that the National Executive Council (NEC) lawfully exercised its powers under Rule 26 of the Constitution to disband the branch. 75.It is not disputed that the Petitioner was elected as Branch Secretary of the Nandi Branch on 9th January 2021. It is equally not disputed that during its meeting held on 10th and 11th May 2023, the NEC resolved to disband the Nandi Branch and that the said resolution was subsequently communicated to the Registrar of Trade Unions, culminating in the cancellation of the registration of the branch. Section 25 of the Labour Relations Act provides for registration and dissolution of branches as follows:25.Registration of branches.1.A trade union, employers’ organisation or federation shall apply to the Registrar to register its branches in Form F set out in the Second Schedule.2.An application to register a branch shall―(a)be made by an authorised representative within thirty days of the formation of the branch;(b)specify the name of the branch, its postal address and the place at which the branch will meet or conduct its business; and(c)specify the titles, names, ages, occupation and place of work of all officials of the branch.3.The authorised representative specified under subsection (2) shall give notice to the Registrar in writing of the dissolution of any branch of a trade union, employer’s organisation or federation.4.The Registrar―(a)shall maintain registers reflecting the branches of trade unions, employers’ organisations and federations; and(b)may request further information before deciding whether to register a branch or remove its name from the relevant register.5.No person shall act or purport to act as an official of a branch of a trade union, employer’s organisation or federation if that branch is not registered or has had its registration cancelled. 76.Rule 26 of the Respondent’s Constitution provides for branch establishment and closure as follows:(i)(a)Branch Establishment“The National Executive Council shall decide the place where a Branch Office of the union may be established, provided that no Branch shall be established if the number of members is less than six hundred (600).”(b)Branch Closure“The National Executive Council may suspend or disband any Branch which fails to comply with the constitution and rules of the union where the membership of any branch has dropped below the membership threshold under Rule 26 (a) for a period of six months. The National Executive Council may transfer the members of any branch so suspended or disbanded to another Branch or merge Branches close to each other with a similar membership drop and such a decision shall be reported to the National Delegates or Special Delegates Conference for ratification.” 77.The constitution of the union thus empowers the National Executive Council of the Union (NEC) to suspend or disband a branch whose membership falls below the prescribed threshold. The Rule further permits the transfer of members from a suspended or disbanded branch to another branch. Accordingly, the Respondent’s NEC possessed constitutional authority to disband branches that failed to meet the membership threshold. 78.The Petitioner's principal contention is that at the time of his election the applicable Constitution prescribed a threshold of 300 members and that the Respondent unlawfully relied on subsequent amendments increasing the threshold to 600 members to terminate his tenure. The Court is unable to agree with that proposition. 79.While the Petitioner's election was governed by the constitutional framework in force on 9th January 2021, the continued existence of the branch remained subject to the Constitution in force from time to time. The evidence before Court demonstrates that by the time the NEC considered the viability of the Nandi Branch in May 2023, the amended Constitution prescribing a threshold of 600 members was the one in force, having been lawfully amended as acknowledged by the Petitioner and affirmed by the Respondent. 80.The Court therefore finds that the Respondent was entitled to apply the constitutional framework in force at the time the decision concerning the branch was made. The application of the amended Constitution to the continued existence of the branch did not amount to retrospective application of the law nor did it invalidate the Petitioner's election. 81.The Court has also considered the evidence relating to the branch's membership. While the Petitioner maintains that the branch met the threshold at the time of his election, the relevant inquiry is whether the branch met the threshold applicable at the time the decision to dissolve it was made. The material placed before Court does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the Nandi Branch met the six hundred-member threshold prescribed by the applicable Constitution and nor that the Petitioner assert so. 82.The Court is therefore satisfied that the Respondent had a substantive basis upon which it could consider the continued viability of the Nandi Branch and invoke the powers conferred upon it under Rule 26. 83.The other question for consideration is whether the process leading to the dissolution of the branch and the declaration of redundancy complied with the requirements of the Respondent’s constitution procedural fairness. 84.In its response to the Petition in respect to the process leading to the termination of the Petitioner’s position on account of redundancy, the Respondent has relied on a letter dated 5th July 2023 inviting the Petitioner to attend a meeting and explain the status of the Nandi branch and its membership. From the evidence on record, the said letter was issued after the NEC had resolved to give non-compliant branches 6 months’ notice and thereafter to reconvene to check progress and make the ultimate decision. 85.At the NEC meeting held on 10th and 11th May 2023, it was reported that notice was issued to all branches whose membership was below the threshold on 18th October, 2022 reminding them on the issue of membership and that some branches had improved while others had shown no improvement. A resolution was passed that the branches which had shown no improvement be disbanded. Nandi Branch was among them. 86.A notice was thereafter issued to the Petitioner as branch secretary, Nandi Branch. The notice which is at page 9 of the Replying affidavit is reproduced below:Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied WorkersStaff/067/2023/01 5th July, 20235th July, 2023Mr. Wesley SainaBranch SecretaryNandiDear SirRe: Progressive Reports and Branch PerformanceFrom our records, we have not been receiving your monthly progressive reports so as to gauge your branch performance in the past few years.The failure and or ignorance of the obligation can only be construed to mean non-performance or dismal performance of the branch as new or significant check-off forms have not been received by us.Arising from the aforestated you are invited to the Head office on 13th July, 2023 at 11:00am to explain and defend yourself. Please carry any relevant information which may help in understanding your case.Yours faithfullySignedAndrew KinyuaFor General SecretaryCc: The Treasurer General, KUCFAW 87.According to the Respondent, the Petitioner neither responded to the letter nor attended the meeting at head office. 88.As regards the declaration of the Petitioner’s position as redundant, it is worth noting that the office of Branch Secretary was tied to the existence of the branch itself. Once the branch was dissolved, there was ordinarily no office through which the Petitioner could continue discharging his functions. In that regard, the Respondent cannot be faulted for concluding that the Petitioner's position could no longer be sustained. The declaration of redundancy flowed directly from the decision to dissolve the branch. 89.The Court therefore finds that the Respondent had authority to dissolve the Nandi Branch and to take consequential administrative measures arising therefrom. The court further finds the decision to declare the Petitioner redundant to have been a natural consequence of the dissolution of the branch, and therefore lawful. Whether the Petitioner's constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights guaranteed under Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution, were violated. 90.The Petitioner contends that the Respondent's actions violated Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution, the Labour Relations Act, the Fair Administrative Action Act and the principles of legitimate expectation. He argues that the dissolution of the Nandi Branch and the resultant declaration of redundancy deprived him of his elected office without due process and unlawfully interfered with his rights as a trade union official. 91.The Court has already found that the Respondent possessed constitutional authority to dissolve branches whose membership fell below the prescribed threshold, and that the process leading to the dissolution of the Nandi Branch was lawful. The Petitioner having been given an opportunity, first, to grow the membership and bring it up to the threshold and having failed to do so, having again been given an opportunity to go to the head office to explain the membership situation at the Branch and having failed to do so, he cannot fault the Respondent for violation of his rights under Article 41 and 47 of the Constitution and section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, he cannot fault the Respondent for procedural unfairness. 92.Articles 41 and 47(1) of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. The right is operationalized through the Fair Administrative Action Act which obligates decision makers to accord persons likely to be adversely affected by administrative action prior notice, adequate reasons and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before a decision is taken. The Petitioner was notified of the intention to dissolve the branch and given an opportunity to save the branch from dissolution but failed to do so. He was further given an opportunity to explain the branch membership situation which he again failed to do. He cannot complain of violation of his rights under Article 41 and 47 of the Constitution and section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act. 93.The Court further notes that following the dissolution of the branch the Petitioner was offered terminal benefits which he accepted through his letter dated 15th February, 2024 which is reproduced below:Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied WorkersWesley Langat SainaCELL 0725xxxx7815/2/2025The TrEasurer GeneralKUCFA WorkersPO Box 46818-00100NairobiDear Madam,Att. Rebecca NyathogoraRe: Redundancy PaymentI do hereby acknowledge the received letter dated 7th February, 2024.The calculation indicated are okay for me and no objection.Therefore I do accept and waiting for the payment.ThanksWesley Langat Saina0725xxxx78 94.The Court consequently finds that the Respondent's actions were in compliance with the standards of procedural fairness contemplated under Article 47 of the Constitution and the section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act. To that extent, the Petitioner's right to fair administrative action was not violated. 95.There is no doubt that elected trade union officials enjoy constitutional protection and that trade union democracy ought to be safeguarded against arbitrary interference. However, the protection afforded by Article 41 does not immunize trade union officials from lawful actions taken pursuant to a union's constitution and governing rules. 96.In the present case, the Court has found that the Respondent possessed constitutional authority under Rule 26 to disband branches that failed to meet the prescribed membership threshold. There is no evidence that the Petitioner was removed from office on account of his participation in trade union activities, his exercise of freedom of association, or any improper motive directed at him personally. 97.Rather, the decision arose from the Respondent's assessment of the viability of the Nandi Branch and its compliance with the membership requirements prescribed under the applicable Constitution. The Court is therefore unable to conclude that the Respondent's actions constituted a violation of the Petitioner's rights under Article 41 of the Constitution. 98.The court further notes that the dissolution of Nandi branch was not in isolation. Nandi branch was one out of eight (8) branches dissolved for the same reason of not meeting the threshold of membership even after being given 6 months’ notice to recruit more members and demonstrate potential for growth. 99.The Petitioner further relied on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. He submitted that having been elected on 9th January 2021 for a five-year term, he legitimately expected to serve until January 2026. 100.The Court agrees that the Petitioner's election gave rise to a legitimate expectation that he would continue serving in office and that any action affecting his office would be undertaken lawfully, fairly and in accordance with the Respondent's Constitution. However, that expectation could not override the Respondent's constitutional power to regulate the continued existence of branches through its governing organs. 101.The Petitioner's legitimate expectation therefore extended only to the observance of due process and fair procedure, and not to the indefinite existence of the branch regardless of whether it satisfied the constitutional requirements governing branch operations. 102.The Petitioner had corresponding responsibility in his capacity as branch secretary. Under the Respondent’ constitution the role of the branch secretary is stated as follows:i.The Branch Secretary shall issue notices of all meetings and shall attend such meetings and record the minutes and shall be eligible to vote.ii.He/she shall ensure that a register of members is maintained with the names, address, and occupation, date of joining, date of resignation or expulsion. He/she shall be responsible for ensuring due compliance by the Branch with the provision of the Labour laws and any other regulations made there under and shall perform all duties as the General Secretary the National Executive Council or Branch Committee may from time to time direct. He/she may be a full or part time Official of the Union. 103.Accordingly, the Court finds that the Petitioner's legitimate expectation was not violated by the Respondent. 104.In the final analysis, the Court finds that the Petitioner has failed to established any violation of his right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act. He has further failed to establish a violation of Article 41 of the Constitution or any unlawful interference with his freedom of association or trade union rights. 105.The court also reads bad faith in the filing of the instant Petition. The Nandi Branch was deregistered on 2nd January, 2024. The Petitioner had been notified of the closure of the branch by letter dated 24th, July, 2023 and of his redundancy by letter dated 27th July, 2023. He was issued with a letter dated 7th February, 2024 tabulating his terminal dues which he accepted by letter dated 15th February, 2024. The terminal dues were paid in installments with the last installment paid in June, 2024. The Petitioner was issued with a certificate of service dated 12th April, 2024. The Petition was filed in June, 2025, one year later. I find it to have been an afterthought. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought. 106.The Petitioner seeks the following reliefs: declarations that the dissolution of the Nandi Branch and the resultant declaration of redundancy were unconstitutional, unlawful and null and void; a declaration that he remained the duly elected Branch Secretary until January 2026; orders of certiorari, prohibition and permanent injunction; compensation; salary for the unexpired portion of his term and costs. I will address these reliefs under separate heads.i.A declaration that the dissolution of the Nandi Branch and the resultant declaration of redundancy were unconstitutional, unlawful and null and voidThe Court has found that the Respondent, through its National Executive Council, possessed the requisite authority under Rule 26 of its Constitution to dissolve branches that failed to attain the prescribed membership threshold. To that extent, the Court is unable to declare the dissolution of the Nandi Branch or the consequential declaration of redundancy unconstitutional, unlawful, null or void. The Court has further found that the process leading to the impugned decision complied with the requirements of procedural fairness, as the Petitioner was accorded an opportunity to be heard before a decision affecting his office and employment was made but squandered the opportunity. Accordingly, this prayer fails.ii.A declaration that the Petitioner remained the duly elected Branch Secretary of the Nandi Branch until January 2026As already mentioned, the office of Branch Secretary was dependent upon the continued existence of the branch. Once the branch was lawfully dissolved pursuant to the Respondent's Constitution, the office ceased to exist. Consequently, this prayer cannot be granted.iii.An order of certiorari to quash the decision made on 27th July 2023The prayer for certiorari cannot issue. The impugned decision has already been implemented, the registration of the Nandi Branch was cancelled and the Petitioner's term of office has since lapsed. In the circumstances, the order sought has been overtaken by events and would serve no practical purpose.iv.An order of prohibition restraining the Respondent from interfering with the Petitioner's exercise of officeThe prayer for prohibition is not merited. The Court has already found that the Nandi Branch was dissolved and its registration subsequently cancelled. Further, the Petitioner’s tenure as Branch Secretary has since come to an end by effluxion of time. In the circumstances, there is no existing office capable of protection through an order of prohibition. The prayer has therefore been overtaken by events and the order sought cannot issue.v.A permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from appointing or electing any person to the position of Branch Secretary of the Nandi Branch during the subsistence of the Petitioner's termThe Petitioner's term having expired and the branch having ceased to exist following its dissolution, this prayer is therefore overtaken by events and is declined.vi.Damages and compensationThe Court has found that the Petitioner's right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution was not violated, that the Respondent had a valid constitutional basis and authority to dissolve the branch. The Court is satisfied that an award of damages is not warranted in the circumstances. This prayer is therefore declined.vii.Payment of salary for the unexpired portion of the Petitioner’s termThis prayer is declined as there is no legal basis for such an award. The Petitioner's office was contingent upon the continued existence of the branch and there is no evidence that he rendered services after the branch ceased to operate. Further, the Petitioner accepted and received his terminal dues following separation. This prayer is therefore declined. 107.Consequently, all the prayers in the petition having failed, the petition is dismissed. 108.Each party shall bear its own costs. 109.Orders accordingly. DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED ON THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.M. ONYANGOJUDGE