Kenya Concrete, Structural, Ceramic Tiles, Wood Plys and Interior Design Workers Union v China State Construction & Engineering Corporation Limited (Cause E056 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 182 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Respondent was properly served with the primary pleadings and whether the application to set aside the ex parte proceedings should be allowed
- 2.Whether Cause Number E247 of 2022 involves the same issues as this Claim
- 3.Whether the Respondent should be compelled to deduct and remit trade union dues under Section 48 of the Labour Relations Act
- 4.Whether the Respondent should sign a Recognition Agreement and negotiate a CBA with the Claimant
- 5.Whether the Respondent should be restrained from victimising Employees on account of their union membership
Key legal issues
#Validity of service by e-mail and application to set aside ex parte proceedings
The application to reopen hearing was declined because the Respondent did not deny the e-mail address used for service, and no principal officer swore an affidavit disputing service
The Respondent was served with the application and primary pleadings through its last known e-mail address, chinastatelokicharhr1@gmail.com, which it did not deny was correct. Mr. Amule, not being the recipient of the pleadings, could not credibly speak to service. There was nothing in the application to discount the affidavit of service or the replying affidavit of Mr. Angoya.
Whether Cause E247 of 2022 raises the same issues, warranting deferral
Cause E247 of 2022 involves unfair termination of 7 Employees and does not address Recognition, CBA and trade union dues, so it does not bar hearing of this Claim
The other Cause arose from different conciliation proceedings and a Conciliator's recommendation for reinstatement of 7 Employees. It does not deal with Recognition, CBA or trade union dues, which are the subject of this Claim. There was accordingly no duplication of issues justifying deferral.
Entitlement to deduction and remittance of trade union dues, Recognition Agreement and CBA
The Claimant, having recruited 294 of 300 unionisable Employees with a gazette notice authorising dues deduction, and having already engaged in collective bargaining subjects through the return-to-work formula, is entitled to the orders sought
The Respondent supplied no muster roll or records disputing the recruitment figures. The return-to-work agreement negotiated by the parties showed the Respondent had no doubt as to the Claimant's capacity as sole collective bargaining agency. An order for Recognition and execution of a CBA would formalise the existing informal engagement and assist social dialogue.
Legal principles established
#- Service through an e-mail address not denied by the Respondent, absent a disputing affidavit from a principal officer, constitutes valid service
- A return-to-work formula negotiated by top representatives of the parties with the assistance of Counsel and the Labour Office evidences the union's capacity as a collective bargaining agency and supports an order for Recognition and execution of a CBA
- Parties and their representatives must assist the Court to further the principal objectives of expeditious, efficient and proportionate resolution of disputes under Section 3(3) of the E&LRC Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's application seeking to reopen hearing of the Claim is declined
- 2.The Respondent shall deduct and remit trade union dues to the Claimant, in accordance with Section 48 of the Labour Relations Act
- 3.The Respondent shall forthwith sign a Recognition Agreement with the Claimant
- 4.Parties shall thereafter negotiate, execute and register a CBA, within 90 days of signing Recognition Agreement
- 5.The Respondent shall not victimize any of its Employees, on account of their association with the Claimant
- 6.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 48 and 54 of the Labour Relations Act; Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Reopening of the hearing / setting aside ex parte proceedings
Service of summons and primary pleadings was confirmed to be in order and nothing persuaded the Court to shift from that position
Costs
No order on the 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.
The Court does not see why the settlement agreement, negotiated and concluded by top representatives of the Parties to this dispute, with the assistance of Counsel and the Labour Ofice, should not have aided in the resolution of the dispute herein.
I. The Respondent shall deduct and remit trade union dues to the Claimant, in accordance with Section 48 of the Labour Relations Act.
II. The Respondent shall forthwith sign a Recognition Agreement with the Claimant.
IV. The Respondent shall not victimize any of its Employees, on account of their association with the Claimant.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number appears in the body as both 'E&LRC Cause Number 247 of 2022' (a different, competing claim) and 'Cause Number E247 of 2022' is described as 'between the Parties, as submitted by the Respondent', creating potential ambiguity in the cause number of this suit versus the other claim
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Concrete, Structural, Ceramic Tiles, Wood Plys and Interior Design Workers Union v China State Construction & Engineering Corporation Limited (Cause E056 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 182 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause E247 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/182/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.