Transport Workers Union v Green Line Company Limited (Cause E447 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2819 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan trade union can sue on behalf of its member in court even without a recognition agreement with the employer.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a trade union has locus standi to bring a claim on behalf of a union member in the absence of a recognition agreement with the employer
- 2.Whether the respondent's preliminary objection should be upheld and the claimant's claim struck out
Key legal issues
#Locus standi of a trade union to sue on behalf of a member without a recognition agreement
A trade union has locus standi to institute claims on behalf of its members even without a recognition agreement; recognition is necessary only for collective bargaining, not for representation in court
Relying on binding Court of Appeal authority in Modern Soap Factory, the court held that section 45(1) of the Labour Relations Act creates no necessary nexus between recognition and representation. Article 41 protects the right to join a union, and the union may act in the interest of its members. Membership is a question of fact for evidence, not a preliminary objection.
Whether the preliminary objection should be struck out
The preliminary objection was overruled
Supported by the Court of Appeal's pronouncement, which binds this court, the judge found the objection had no basis in law and overruled it with costs in the cause, allowing the claim to proceed.
Legal principles established
#- A recognition agreement is not the basis upon which a trade union represents its members in court; recognition and representation are distinct roles
- Whether an employee is a member of a union is a question of fact requiring evidence, not determinable on a preliminary objection
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection is overruled
- 2.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 41 of the Constitution of Kenya and sections 4, 5, 52 and 62 of the Labour Relations Act; section 48 of the Employment Act
Relief refused
#Striking out of the claimant's claim
The preliminary objection had no basis in law since a recognition agreement is not a prerequisite for a union to represent a member in court
Costs
Overruled with costs in the cause
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Supported by the clear pronouncement by the Court of Appeal, whose decisions are binding on this court, I have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the respondent’s preliminary objection has no basis in law.
The preliminary objection is therefore overruled with costs in the cause.
It is not the basis upon which the trade union represents its members in court. As the learned Judge correctly stated, the two roles are distinct.
Issues in the judgment
#The claimant's name and case number are not stated in the judgment text, which begins directly with the memorandum of claim; the parties are identified only as 'claimant' and 'respondent'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Transport Workers Union v Green Line Company Limited (Cause E447 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2819 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2819/eng@2023-11-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.