https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1652

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT MOMBASA TRADE UNION ELECTION PETITION NO. E.009 OF 2026 MATANO OMAR SHAKOMBO……………..1ST PETITONER ABDALLA NURU ALI………………………..2ND PETITIONER VERSUS REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS…….…1ST RESPONDENT SULMAN OTIENO OWUOR…………..…2ND RESPONDENT R.K. NYAGA ………………………………..3RD RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER FOR LABOUR…..…..4TH RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL…………....4TH RESPONDENT AND DOCK WORKERS UNION…..…...1ST INTRESTED PARTRY AMIN ILOTI………………………...2ND INTERESTED PARTY BERNADETTE BAHATI………….3RD INTRESRTED PARTY RUWA MPATE ……………………...4TH INTRESTED PARTY KIBIBY OMERY……………………5TH INTERESTED PARTY MASKAT MOHAMED SALIM….6TH INTERESTED PARTY PARTICK GRANTON……………..7TH INTERETED PARTY DARLINE ONGWENA…………8TH INTERESTRED PARTY MEJUMA CHIRAU………………..9TH INTERESTED PARTY **JUDGMENT** **Background** 1. Given the clear connection between this Petition and the above-stated claim, and considering the Court's overarching objectives as well as the stipulations of Article 159 of the Kenyan Constitution, the Court deemed it necessary to merge the two cases to allow for concurrent proceedings and a consolidated judgment. 2. For clarity and for the purposes of this Judgment, the Claimant in the above-stated cause shall be deemed the 3rd Petitioner, and his pleadings and witness statement shall form part of the petition. 3. In the Petition, the 1st and 2nd Petitioners sought the following orders; 4. A declaration that there was clear interference in the election by the officers of the 4th Respondent, generally. 5. A declaration that the 2nd Respondent is dishonest and is suspended from holding the offices of trade unions. 6. A declaration that the said election was conducted contrary to the law, and the same is declared null and void. 7. The said election is nullified, and the 1st Respondent is to revert to the earlier register or any register that has been corrected by an order of this court. 8. An injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent from acting as a General Secretary. 9. Costs of the Petition. 10. In the Statement of Claim, the 3rd Petitioner sought; 11. A declaration that the purported elections conducted on 4th April 2026 are null and void. 12. An order restraining the Respondents from acting, holding themselves out, or discharging functions as elected officials of the Dockworkers Union pursuant to the said elections. 13. An order directing that fresh elections be conducted strictly in accordance with the Dockworkers Union Constitution. 14. An order be issued directing the Registrar of Trade Unions not to register or recognise any officials purportedly elected on 4th April 2026, and or to nullify any registration already effected. 15. Costs of this Claim. 16. The Respondents opposed the Petition through the various Replying Affidavits filed herein. **The 1st and 2nd, Petitioners’ case** 1. The petitioners stated that they are employees of the Kenya Ports Authority and members of the interested party. and their address for the purpose of this case shall be the Dock Workers Union, P. O. Box 98207-SOI 00, Mombasa. 2. The Petitioners stated that in a purported election of the officials of the 1st Interested allegedly held on 4th April 2026, the 2nd Respondent was purportedly elected as the General Secretary, while the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th interested parties were elected unanimously or unopposed to the positions of the National Chairman, Vice National Chairman, Assistant General Secretary, National Treasurer, Assistant National Treasurer, representative of Male Young Workers, Female Young Workers, and National Chairperson of Gender, respectively. 3. Subsequently, the 2nd Respondent submitted a Form Q dated 6th April 2026 to the 1st Respondent, requesting the registration of the officials elected during the contested election. 4. The Petitioners further stated that by a circular dated 25th September, 2025, the 1st Respondent directed trade unions to conduct their elections from January 2026 in accordance with their respective Constitutions. 5. The 1st interested party, in accordance with the said circular, issued its Notice of election pursuant to the resolutions of the National Executive Committee, which met on 26th February, 2026, and scheduled its elections for 25th June, 2026. Subsequently, a notice dated 3rd March, 2026, was issued to all its members. There has been no change or review of that notice. 6. The petitioners were shocked to learn that the 2nd Respondent, in collusion with shadowy figures from the offices of the 4th Respondent, had conducted elections for the 1st interested parties on 4th April 2026, contrary to the constitution and the law. 7. The Petitioners further stated that, in accordance with the 1st Interested Party’s Constitution, after the National Executive Committee has set a date for elections, the body mandated to organise and carry out the elections is its Election Board, established pursuant to the provisions of Article 15 thereof. 8. They further asserted that the functions of the Election Board under the Constitution are: to organise and oversee elections at all levels of the union; to receive nominations for various positions from the conference and vet them; to determine who is validly nominated and to disseminate that information; to generally organise and conduct elections and to announce the results; to process electoral complaints and disputes; to present their reports, with recommendations, to the conference; and to provide a final report to the conference indicating who has been elected to the relevant positions. 9. In the circular issued by the 1st Respondent, in respect of the elections of the trade unions, Clause 5(ii). provided inter alia that *"for unions whose constitutions provide their elections to be overseen by the Commissioner for Labour, certified copies of the registers must be furnished to the Commissioner for Labour (for national offices) and the same to the respective County Labour Officers (for branch offices) at least sixty (60) days before the elections"* 10. The petitioners contend that the 1st interested party's constitution does not provide for its elections to be overseen by the Labour officers from the offices of the 4th Respondent, because it has established an Election Board pursuant to Article 15 of the 1st interested party's constitution, with explicit mandates and functions to manage and administer elections. It is therefore surprising that officers from the 4th Respondent were involved in the impugned exercise. 11. The Petitioners contended that, owing to the complexity of the election process, the NEC always gives a notice of at least four [4] weeks under Article 10 of the Constitution for the election of the officials of the first Interested party. 12. The petitioners contend that such an election can only be held at the Annual Conference upon the decision of the organ [National Executive Committee (NEC)] mandated to decide the date, venue, and to convene any conference. 13. Once the NEC has issued a notice of at least 4 weeks, pursuant to Article 10 of the 1st Interested Party's Constitution, the Election Board initiates several procedures to ensure a fair election. These procedures are set out in the functions of the Election Board. The most vital of these include the nomination of candidates, the management of the register of members, the printing of ballot papers, and the recruitment of polling clerks, all to ensure compliance with democratic electoral standards. 14. The petitioners contend that the 2nd Respondent did not issue any notice which complied with Article 10 of the Constitution, nor was there a review of the first notice to the members dated 3rd March, 2026, in accordance with the Constitution of the interested party. 15. The petitioners further contended that, at all times, it has been the customs, practice and traditions of the interested party to conduct elections within the port, with the respective administrative sections turned into polling stations, because all paid-up members are voters in any election of the interested party and therefore no other hall can accommodate close to 6000 members at the same time. KPA operates 24/7, and the arrangement is designed to reach workers at their workplaces and to prevent infiltration by outsiders. Within the port, there have always been nine polling stations. 16. The contested election was held at Mbaraki Hall, which has a capacity of fewer than one thousand individuals. According to the footage reviewed by the Petitioners, the attendance at the meeting did not exceed 500 persons, and their membership credentials are also questionable. In accordance with Article 10 of the Constitution of the interested party, all paid-up members, members of the NEC, and trustees are required to have attended and voted at the event. 17. The Petitioners contend that the 2nd Respondent was appointed on 27th February, 2026, by the 1st Respondent as Acting General Secretary in a controversial manner. The manner of his appointment is the subject of a suit currently pending. 18. Inexplicably, and in a manner designed to deceive the members of the interested party and to bypass the organ charged with organising and ensuring a credible election, on 12th March, 2026, the 2nd Respondent issued a notice of a conference for 27th March, 2026, whose agenda was stated to be the appointment and vetting of an Election Board and the conduct of elections. The notice was purportedly copied to the Chairman of the 1st Respondent. However, in reality, it did not reach him. Further, the notice did not reach the members. 19. On realising that the said notice had leaked to the members of the 1st Interested Party on or about 23rd March 2026, the 2nd Respondent wrote another letter dated 25th March 2026, disowning the notice and advising the members to treat it as fake and created using Artificial Intelligence. 20. On 3rd April, 2026, he invited members of the 1st Interested Party to meet at Mbaraki via WhatsApp to discuss issues of the 1st Interested Party so that members would differentiate between “propaganda and the truth” 21. The Petitioners argued that by the said actions, the 2nd Respondent withdrew the notice dated 12th March 2026. Further, the 2nd Respondent knew very well that only a very limited number of members of the 1st Respondent could be reached through his WhatsApp message. 22. They asserted that, through the impugned election, the 2nd Respondent and the 2nd to 9th Interested parties were purportedly elected unanimously or unopposed to the positions of General Secretary, National Chairman, Vice National Chairman, Assistant General Secretary, National Treasurer, Assistant National Treasurer, Male Young Workers Representative, Female Young Workers Representative, and National Chairman of the Gender Committee, as communicated by Blueline News online. 23. The Petitioners further contended that several members of the 1st Interested Party, including the National Chairman and other bodies, objected to the said election. 24. They further contended that during the purported election, no election register was used, notwithstanding its central role in an election system. The 2nd Respondent and the 2nd to 9th Respondents were not elected by secret ballot. 25. The purported election was neither held at a conference nor conducted by the Election Board, nor attended by the members of the NEC, nor attended by the members of the interested party. Further, there were no candidates for that election. 26. The Petitioners contended that the officers of the 4th Respondent interfered with the activities of their union and imposed officials who are not elected by the interested party. 27. The objections were personally served upon the 1st Respondent, and by her letter dated 7th April 2026, she notified the 2nd and 3rd Respondents of receipt of those objections to the impugned elections and required them to respond to those objections within two days, which she also copied to the complaints. 28. On 9th April 2026, the 1st Respondent proceeded to register the changes of officers, committee members, and trustees of the interested party, which was forwarded to her via the Form Q dated 6th April 2026. 29. The office of the 1st Respondent is a statutory office and a duty-bearer in relation to the activities of the trade unions. When she received the objections, she immediately assumed quasi-judicial status and ought to have carried out her mandates under Section 35 of the Labour Relations Act transparently, impartially, and by visiting the venue of the impugned elections with all parties involved, so as to ensure fairness to all parties. 30. It was further asserted that the 1st Respondent did not afford any hearing to the objectors; instead, she met only the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in her office and immediately determined the issue in a manner unacceptable to the objectors. The investigative process should not have excluded the objectors. 31. In essence, the 1st Respondent was conducting inquiries and/or investigations under Sections 35(3) and (4) of the Labour Relations Act. She was obliged to provide written reasons for how she arrived at the decision, for this court to consider for review, given that this court would not have the opportunity to meet and hear the objectors. 32. They further argued that Kenya is established as a democratic State, founded on national values and principles of governance, and these democratic principles are legally binding on all state organs, state officers, public officers, and institutions. 33. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents, apart from acting in breach of the Constitution of the 1st Interested Party and the law, also contravened the provisions of the Constitution, 2010. 34. Article 12(l)(b) of the Constitution of the 1st interested party sets out the composition of the National Executive Committee (NEC). It should have 21 members. However, the NEC purportedly constituted by the 1st Respondent comprises 28 members, contrary to the 1st interested party's Constitution. **The 1st Respondent’s Case** 1. The 1st Respondent resisted the petition on the grounds set out in her Replying Affidavit, sworn by Ann K. Kanake on 28th April 2026. She averred that the 1st Respondent did not take part in the elections allegedly held at Mbaraki Club on 4th April 2026. 2. She stated that under the relevant law, the 1st Respondent is responsible for registering Trade Union officials, as communicated after elections are conducted. In line with this, they received a communication indicating that the 1st Respondent had held its elections on the 4th of April 2026, and, as such, there was a need to register the newly elected officials. 3. It was further stated that the first Respondent received multiple objections from members of the first Interested Party opposing the purported elections of 4th April 2026. Upon receipt of the complaints, they were forwarded to the first Interested Party, which responded that the elections were conducted in a lawful and transparent manner. 4. She further stated that, based on the assurance provided by the 1st Interested Party, the 1st Respondent registered the elected official in accordance with the law. The 1st Respondent wasn’t privy to the conduct of the elections. Only those involved can address the matters in controversy in this petition. **The 2nd Respondent’s Response** 1. The 2nd Respondent opposed the petition via his replying affidavit, sworn on 29th April 2026. He stated that by a Notice dated 25th September, 2025, issued by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, State Department for Labour and Skills Development, the Unions were directed to undertake their National Elections between 1st April 2026 and 30th June 2026. 2. That the previous General Secretary, Simon Kiprono Sang of the Dock Workers Union, had resolved, through the Board, that elections were to be conducted on 25th June, 2026, which was 5 days before the set deadline. 3. By a Judgment of the Court, in Mombasa Employment and Labour Relations Court Cause No. In E025 of 2025, the Court found the previous General Secretary unfit to continue in office and ordered his removal. 4. On 11th March, 2026, the National Executive Committee of the Union resolved that 25th June, 2026, was not suitable for the elections and that elections were to be conducted on 4th April, 2026. 5. He asserted that the 1st Petitioner has deliberately failed to disclose to the court that he was the Chairperson and primary architect of the impugned electoral process. 6. The 2nd Respondent further contended that the Minutes of the meeting explicitly reflect that the 1st Petitioner chaired the meeting; he presided over deliberations, resolving to convene a Special Conference on 4th April, 2026, and he endorsed the venue (Mbaraki), timelines, and electoral framework. 7. During the said meeting, the 1st Petitioner expressly affirmed that: the Union Constitution vests the Committee with powers equivalent to an AGM; and that there existed no legal bar to conducting elections at the Special Conference. 8. Having actively initiated, chaired and sanctioned the electoral process, the 1st Petitioner is legally estopped from impugning the same. The petition offends the settled equitable doctrine that a party cannot approbate and reprobate and amounts to an abuse of the court process. 9. The 2nd Respondent further asserted that the elections held on 4th April, 2026, were conducted strictly in accordance with the Dock Workers Union Constitution. 10. Pursuant to Article 10 of the Union Constitution of the 1st Respondent, the National Executive Committee lawfully resolved on March, 2026 to convene a Special Conference. The requisite 21 days' notice was duly observed. It is clear from the notice that the members were invited to conduct elections and not a consultative meeting, as alleged by the Petitioners. 11. The letter presented by the Petitioners did not emanate from him, and as such, they are forged. He never called members to a consultative meeting. 12. That under Article 18 of the Union Constitution, the Election Board was duly ratified by the Conference and the elections were conducted by secret ballot. The process was transparent and procedurally sound. The minutes of 4th April, 2026, confirm the ratification of the Election Board, Presentation of nominees and conduct of elections by a duly constituted body. 13. He contended that the involvement of the Labour Officer Representative was lawful and enhanced transparency, and did not interfere with union autonomy. 14. Under Section 35 (5) and (6) of the Union Constitution, the Registrar is under a statutory duty to register changes of officials unless there is lawful cause to decline. No such lawful cause existed in this case. 15. The objections raised are unsupported by evidence, inconsistent with the documentary record and legally incompetent. **The Rejoinder.** 1. In reaction to the averments by the 1st and 2nd Respondent, the Petitioners filed five affidavits, thus; 2. That sworn by Juma Mohammed, on 5th May 2026, 3. That sworn by Winfer Nyaboke on 5th May 2026, 4. That sworn by Lilian Onyancha, on 5th May 2026, 5. A supplementary affidavit sworn by the 1st Petitioner on the 4th of May 2026, 6. A supplementary affidavit sworn by the 3rd Petitioner. 7. Mr. Mwasera Juma Mohammed stated that he has served as the chairman of the 1st Respondent since 2022 until the elections in question, when he was purportedly removed from the position. 8. He stated that, indeed, he was present and chaired a NEC meeting that was convened on 11th March 2026. However, the meeting did not proceed as the NEC members raised issues. The meeting was called off after the 2nd Respondent consulted and decided to. The members agreed to the decision. 9. He asserted that he was shocked to learn that minutes were subsequently fabricated, purporting that the NEC meeting took place, that he had chaired it, and that he subsequently signed the minutes. 10. The signature appended to the minutes of the meeting purportedly held on 11th March 2026 is a forgery and not his. 11. Ms Winfer Nyaboke asserted that she is the Secretary of the 1st Respondent. She confirmed that a National Executive Committee meeting was scheduled for 11th March 2026, but it did not take place. 12. Consequently, no deliberations were undertaken, and no resolutions were made, as the meeting was aborted. Subsequently, the 2nd Respondent asked her to prepare an attendance list and minutes of the aborted meeting. 13. She stated that she declined to do so on the basis that no meeting took place and it would be improper for her to prepare minutes for a meeting that never took place. The WhatsApp messages communicating the request and her response are a testament to this. 14. The purported minutes and attendance records for the alleged meeting are fabricated and do not reflect any actual proceedings. 15. Ms Lilian Onyancha averred that, contrary to what the 2nd Respondent has put forward, she did not attend the National Executive Committee meeting purportedly held on 11th March 2026. It is shocking that minutes were prepared purporting that he was at the meeting. 16. On 11th March 2026, she was at her workstation in her capacity as an Accountant of the Dockworkers Union and did not attend any National Executive Committee meeting at the boardroom or elsewhere. 17. The 3rd Petitioner [Justine Muranja Angore, the Claimant in the cause] stated that the 1st Petitioner is not an NEC Member or a Union official and, as such, could not lawfully chair or participate in such a meeting. The 1st Petitioner’s name does not appear on the attendance list tendered by the 2nd Respondent. 18. The 2nd Respondent has not provided documents that would allow for the discernment of employee releases, work coordination arrangements, and employer circulars authorizing participation. 19. The 2nd Respondent did not provide any list of candidates that was circulated, displayed, or accessible to members before or during the supposed election, as required by Article 25[4] of the 1st Interested Party’s Constitution. This omission makes the alleged process unverifiable and procedurally defective. 20. The Respondents have not brought forth any evidence of a lawful nomination process having been conducted for any of the elective positions, including nomination forms, candidate application letters, or records of vetting as required under Article 15[2][a][1] of the 1st Respondent’s Constitution. **Analysis and Determination** 1. I have carefully considered the petitioners’ petition, the various affidavits filed by the Petitioners, the affidavits filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, and the submissions filed by the parties’ Counsel, and the following issues emerge for determination; 2. Whether there were elections conducted on 4th April 2026. 3. If so, were the elections conducted in accordance with the Constitution of the 1st Interested Party, the constitutional principles and values, and the relevant statutory provisions? 4. What are the most appropriate orders to be given by this Court? 5. Before I delve into the specific issues identified for determination, I find it imperative to bring out the following principles, which, in my view, shall inform my findings on the issues. 6. Trade union elections are more than just internal administrative procedures; they are vital democratic processes where members assign authority to individuals responsible for protecting their collective rights and interests. Therefore, these elections must be carried out transparently, verifiably, and responsibly, ensuring they are free, fair, and beyond reproach. 7. The law does not tolerate a situation where union leaders emerge through a process shrouded in secrecy, manipulation, intimidation, procedural impropriety, or disregard of the governing legal framework. Every stage of the electoral process, from the issuance of notices, nomination of candidates, compilation of voters’ registers, conduct of voting, counting of ballots, declaration of results, and resolution of disputes, must withstand scrutiny and democratic fidelity to the Constitution of the Union, constitutional values, and applicable statutory provisions. 8. Trade unions are democratic institutions. Their legitimacy derives not from the mere declaration of election results but from the integrity of the process that produces those results. Any departure from the union Constitution, any infringement of members’ democratic rights, or any violation of the law undermines the credibility of the election and erodes members’ confidence in the institution. 9. Courts have consistently emphasised that democratic governance within trade unions is not optional. It is a legal imperative. Those entrusted with conducting union elections bear a solemn duty to ensure strict compliance with the governing rules and principles. An election outcome, however popular or convenient, cannot be sanitised if the process leading to it was fundamentally flawed. **Whether elections were held on 4th April 2026** 1. It is not in dispute that by her letter dated 25th September, 2025, the 1st Respondent issued a direction to all Trade Unions within the timelines that were given in the said letter, thus; 2. Branch elections- 5th January 2026- 31st March 2026. 3. National elections -1st April 2026- 30th June 2026. 4. Further, it is not in dispute that pursuant to the 1st Respondent’s direction, the National Executive Council convened a meeting on 25th June, 2026 and resolved that the elections for the 1st Interested Party’s officials would be conducted on 25th June, 2026. 5. The Petitioners argued that, for the reasons set out hereinbefore, the 2nd Respondent, as Acting General Secretary, engaged in clandestine activities, all aimed at an unfair, non-transparent, non-accountable, and non-free election of new officials. These activities included issuing a notice for a conference on 27th March, 2026, the agenda of which was to appoint and vet the Election Board and to conduct elections. The notice was withdrawn when he wrote a letter dated 25th March, 2026, denouncing the letter dated 12th March 2026 as fake. 6. This is a grave allegation that can be levelled against an official within the trade union space who should protect and advance trade unionism. It required a rebuttal. In my view, the 2nd Respondent did not rebut it, or did so only insufficiently. The 2nd Respondent emerges as a person who, in bad faith, did everything to sabotage the process contemplated under the 1st Interested Party’s Constitution. 7. I have carefully considered the matters raised in the five affidavits filed in rejoinder to the 2nd Respondent’s case, specifically mentioned above, and have come to the inescapable conclusion that the 2nd Respondent first attempted to improperly cause the secretary to prepare minutes and an attendance list for a National Executive Committee meeting. The WhatsApp messages mentioned above are a testament to this. The person whom the 2nd Respondent alleged chaired the NEC that set a date for the elections on 4th April 2026, Mr Mwasera Juma, unequivocally and vehemently asserted that the NEC meeting was aborted, and, as such, there was no resolution to advance the previously scheduled election date to 4th April 2026. 8. With the foregoing in mind, which the 2nd Respondent has not sufficiently controverted, and not losing sight of the fact that Ms Winfer Nyaboke, whose attendance the attendance list purports to show, has, under oath, denied attending the meeting, this Court is left with a single option, namely to conclude that no NEC meeting was held at which a resolution was passed to move the date of elections from 25th June 2026 to 4th April 2026. As such, no elections were conducted on 4th April 2026. **Whether the election was in accordance with the Stipulations of the 1st Interested Party’s Constitution, and constitutional values and principles.** 1. Assuming that I am wrong on the findings on the first issue, as I have set out hereinabove, I would still find in the negative on this 2nd issue. 2. Section 34[1] of the Labour Relations Act commands that the election of officials of a Trade Union, employers’ or federation shall be conducted in accordance with their registered constitutions. In my view, the 1st Interested Party’s Constitution robustly provides for the electoral process for its officials, which must be adhered to at all material times. 3. Article 9 of the Constitution provides that the Conference is the supreme authority of the 1st Respondent, and the Conference is constituted by the Annual Conference and the Special Conference. Under Article 10[c], an annual Conference is convened by the General Secretary at the direction of the National Executive Committee, with four weeks’ written notice to those eligible to attend. 4. The 2nd Respondent contended that the Conference of 4th April was a Special Conference that was duly convened. According to Article 11 of the 1st Interested Party’s Constitution, a Special Conference shall be convened by the General Secretary pursuant to a resolution of the National Executive Committee or at the written request of not less than one-third [1/3] of the fully paid-up members of the Union addressed to the General Secretary. 5. Having found, as set out above, that the National Executive Committee did not sit and resolve on a date for the Special Conference whose agenda would be the election of officials, it is not difficult to conclude that the alleged meeting that took place on 4th April 2026 was not a Special Conference capable of performing the functions set out under Article 3 of the 1st Interested Party’s Constitution, such as electing officials of the Union under sub-article [v]. It is imperative to note that the Special Conference, under Article 11[7], has all the powers of an Annual Conference and is governed by the same rules as the Annual Conference. 6. In order for a Special Conference to be properly convened for transacting, it must have in attendance one-fifth [1/5] of the members entitled to vote. There was no evidence that this quorum requirement set out under Article 11[6] was met at the purported meeting, to enable a conclusion that the alleged meeting was a Special Conference properly convened, considering that notice to the members for the meeting was denied by the Petitioners, and the many objections to the 1st Respondent by the members. 7. The 3rd Respondent presented a list of paid-up members and those who could be eligible to vote, therefore. In number 5742. He contended that the persons who purportedly attended the “Special Conference” were not eligible to vote. I have carefully considered the supplementary affidavit sworn and filed by the 2nd Respondent; it does not controvert this crucial assertion. 8. In my view, it would be expected of any reasonable General Secretary in an impugned election, as is in this case, to present a register of eligible members before getting to those who attended the conference, thus demonstrating that the election was verifiable, transparent, accountable, and in accordance with the Constitution of the Union. The 2nd Respondent’s submissions do not address these twin issues, the quorum and the eligibility of the members who purportedly attended the alleged Special Conference. 9. I have really agonised over this. Assuming there was an NEC meeting, as alleged, that brought forward the date of the election, what special circumstance, as required under Article 11[3] of the Interested Party’s Constitution, could justify a decision that a Special Conference be held, notwithstanding the fact that such a decision, and especially where it sanctions holding elections on an earlier date than previously communicated to the members and reduces the notice period to 14 days instead of the four weeks for an Annual General Conference, could potentially affect the number of those who could attend? 10. In trade union election process, issuance on an adequate notice convening the electoral meeting/ conference is not a mere procedural nicety that can be dispensed with lightly. It is a fundamental requirement that goes to the very legitimacy, transparency, and democratic character of the election. Notice is the mechanism through which eligible delegates or members are informed of the impending electoral exercise, afforded sufficient time to prepare, and enabled to effectively participate in the governance of their union. An election conducted without proper notice, or on the basis of a disputed notice, stands on a shaky foundation. 11. Where the issuance or adequacy of notice becomes a contested issue in an election dispute, the burden squarely falls upon the General Secretary, the Election Board, or the organ charged with convening the conference/meeting to demonstrate, by credible and verifiable evidence, that adequate notice was issued and reached the intended membership. It is not enough for such officials to merely assert, on the witness stand or in affidavits, that notice was issued. Election disputes are determined on evidence, not on bare proclamations. 12. The officials responsible must place before the court tangible proof showing when the notice was issued, the mode through which it was disseminated, the persons or branches to whom it was sent, and that the period of notice afforded members a reasonable opportunity to participate in the electoral process. Documentary evidence or any other evidence capable of demonstrating actual communication becomes indispensable. 13. The rationale is obvious. A contrary position would permit election managers to defeat scrutiny through nothing more than self-serving assertions. Such an approach would undermine accountability and open the door to manipulation of the electoral processes or exclusion of sections of the membership. Democratic elections within trade unions demand more than claims of compliance, they demand proof of compliance. 14. Accordingly, where the evidence regarding notice is deficient, contradictory, or altogether absent, a court is entitled to draw an adverse inference that the electoral process was not conducted in accordance with the union Constitution and the principles of democratic governance. The legitimacy of a trade union election cannot rest upon the unverified word of those who conducted it; it must rest upon demonstrable compliance with the procedural safeguards designed to protect members' electoral rights 15. There is no doubt that the purported notice for the Special Conference was a contentious issue, as reflected in the many objections made to the 1st Respondent and in the affidavits by the Petitioners. Receipt of the notice or knowledge of the same by members was vehemently denied. This Court notes that the 2nd Respondent casually responded that the requisite notice was issued, without stating when and how it was dispatched to the members, and placing forth evidence that those alleging non-service, like the petitioners and the objectors, received the notice or had knowledge of the same. I am left with no option but to state that I am convinced that the notice was not disseminated to all eligible members of the union. 16. The Petitioners’ contention that, traditionally, the 1st Interested Party’s elections have been consistently held for a number of decades at the Kenya Ports Authority premises, at the practice-established polling stations there, for the convenience of the members and the availability of adequate facilities, was not challenged in any way. The Petitioners regarded the purported election at a venue other than the one traditionally known and convenient to the members as implausible, and as a move that would only be actuated by ill faith. 17. The venue of a trade union election is not a trivial administrative detail. It is an integral component of a fair, transparent, and inclusive electoral process. The choice of venue directly affects eligible members' ability to attend, participate, and exercise their democratic rights. Consequently, the selection or alteration of an election venue must be guided by legitimate considerations and not by expediency, convenience to a few, or hidden electoral motives. 18. In my view, where a trade union has over a considerable period of time, consistently conducted its electoral conference at a particular venue for a considerable period of time owing to its accessibility, centrality, convenience, and familiarity to members, a sudden departure from that established practice demands a cogent and demonstrable justification. Such a departure cannot be treated as an inconsequential matter. It raises legitimate questions as to the motive and propriety of the decision. In this matter, I find no sufficient explanation for the sudden shift. 19. An avenue change that makes attendance difficult, inconveniences members or delegates, or reduces participation cannot readily be divorced from the possibility of electoral manipulation. 20. Article 10 of the Constitution sets out national values and principles of governance, including transparency, accountability, integrity and the rule of law. Article 41 of the Constitution provides a right to fair labour practices. In light of the manner in which the 2nd Respondent conducted himself in relation to the matters in controversy herein, it is difficult to conclude that his conduct reflects the values of integrity, accountability and transparency. It is conduct injurious to the ideals of trade unionism, thereby violating the stipulations of Article 41 of the Constitution. 21. It bears repeating that trade union elections must be conducted in a manner that is transparent enough to inspire confidence, verifiable enough to permit independent scrutiny, accountable enough to answer legitimate concerns from members, and lawful enough to demonstrate unwavering adherence to the Constitution of the Union, the national Constitution, and the relevant statutory framework. Anything less would amount to a betrayal of the democratic ideals upon which trade unionism is founded. 22. The 1st Respondent admitted that after the purported elections, he received several objections to the same. However, he went ahead and registered officials who were alleged to have been elected out of the objected-to process. Section 35[3] “Before registering any change of officials or correcting any register, the Registrar may require the production of any relevant evidence of the change” & sub-section [4] provides that if, after inquiry, the Registrar is not satisfied as to the validity of any appointment or the propriety of the proposed correction, the Registrar may refuse to register the change of officials or to correct register. 23. In the circumstances of the matter, an inquiry contemplated under the provision would not reasonably entail merely seeking assurance and comfort from the Interested Party, whose General Secretary was at the centre of the impugned exercise. It required that both sides be heard. In my view, the 1st Respondent acted unreasonably. 24. It is imperative to state that although I have not summarised the parties' submissions or specifically mentioned any portions thereof in the body of this Judgment, they were helpful to this Court, and I am grateful to counsel for the parties. **Of the orders that commend themselves to this Court** 1. In the upshot; 2. I declare that the purported election of 4th April 2026 was a sham, null and void. It is hereby nullified. 3. I hereby direct that the 1st Interested Party conduct fresh elections in accordance with its constitution, constitutional principles and values, and the relevant statutory stipulations, within 60 days of today. 4. The registration of the purportedly elected officials by the 1st Respondent is hereby nullified. 5. The Election Board that was in office before the sham elections will conduct and oversee the elections. 6. Costs of the petition to be borne by the 1st and 2nd Respondents. **Read, Signed, and Delivered this 17th Day of June 2026.** **OCHARO KEBIRA** **JUDGE**