Kenya Building, Construction, Timber & Furniture Industries Employees Union v Laminates Furniture Limited (Cause E359 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2219 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a union's bid to force deduction of members' dues because its affidavit exhibits were unsealed and it abandoned ongoing conciliation too early.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Applicant's undated Supporting Affidavit was commissioned by a Commissioner for Oaths and exhibits were sealed as by law required
- 2.Whether the instant Notice of Motion is premature
- 3.Whether the Claimant union is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Validity of the Supporting Affidavit and exhibits
The exhibits annexed to the Supporting Affidavit were struck out for non-compliance with Rule 9; the Supporting Affidavit was therefore found to lack validity
Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules is mandatory and requires exhibits to be securely sealed and marked with serial letters of identification. None of the annexures was sealed. Applying the authorities cited, the exhibits were struck out, rendering the application unsupported. On commissioning, the Court found the Practicing Certificate of Stanley Mwangi Kinuthia Wandaka genuine despite the LSK portal search returning no result.
Prematurity of the Notice of Motion
The application was premature as conciliation was on-going when the suit was filed and the Claimant abandoned the process mid-way without justification
Section 69 of the Labour Relations Act deems a dispute unresolved either upon a Conciliator's Certificate or expiry of 30 days. The Court held the 30-day period is triggered only when no conciliation is taking place. Evidence showed conciliation meetings were still being convened, and the Claimant filed suit three days after a scheduled meeting without evidence of its outcome. Conciliation under Article 159(2)(c) is binding and cannot be unilaterally abandoned.
Entitlement to the reliefs sought
The Claimant was not entitled to the reliefs; the Notice of Motion was dismissed
Having found the Supporting Affidavit invalid, the exhibits struck out and the suit premature, no foundation remained for the orders directing resumption of union dues deductions. The Court declined to compel deduction and remittance of union dues, holding the Claimant should have completed conciliation or obtained a Conciliator's Certificate.
Legal principles established
#- A dispute is deemed unresolved under Section 69 of the Labour Relations Act only after a Conciliator's Certificate issues or expiry of the 30-day period, and the 30-day period applies only where conciliation is not on-going; a party who invokes conciliation cannot unilaterally abandon it and rush to court
- Exhibits to affidavits must be securely sealed under the seal of the Commissioner for Oaths and marked with serial letters of identification; unsealed, unmarked annexures are inadmissible
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's Notice of Motion dated 9th May, 2024 is dismissed
- 2.The exhibits annexed to the Supporting Affidavit of Julius Macharia Maina are struck out of the record for purposes of the instant Notice of Motion
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution and Sections 69 and 74 of the Labour Relations Act; ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Relief refused
#Order directing the Respondent to forthwith resume deductions and remittances of union dues of the 22 members who joined the Claimant and signed forms
The Supporting Affidavit lacked validity, the exhibits were struck out for non-compliance with Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules, and the Claimant prematurely abandoned an on-going conciliation process
Costs
Parties shall bear own costs.
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.
Parties shall bear own costs.
the Claimant's Notice of Motion dated 9th May, 2024 is for dismissal and it is accordingly dismissed
the exhibits annexed to the Applicant's undated Supporting Afidavit of Julius Macharia Maina are non-compliant with the mandatory requirements of Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules and are struck out of the record for purposes of the instant Notice of Motion
the 30 day period is only triggered if no conciliation is taking place as opposed to when the process is on-going as was the case in the instant case
having invoked the conciliation process by reporting the dispute to the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, the process was binding on the Claimant and could not unilaterally abandon the process
Issues in the judgment
#The Notice of Motion is stated to have been based on an undated Supporting Affidavit that states it was sworn by F. K. Murage but was deposed by Julius Macharia Maina
The judgment refers to a third conciliation meeting dated inconsistently - the Claimant deposed the last meeting was on 6th April, 2024 while the Court finds the second meeting was on 15th April, 2024 and a third slated for 22nd April, 2024
The judgment bears the marking 'DRAFT' at its end
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Building, Construction, Timber & Furniture Industries Employees Union v Laminates Furniture Limited (Cause E359 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2219 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2219/eng@2024-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.