Kenya Union of Commercial, Food & Allied Workers v Murang’a West Water & Sanitation Company Limited; Kenya County Government Workers Union (Intended Interested Party) (Cause E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 381 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a union to join a recognition dispute because it now represents most of the workers whose terms are at stake.
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 meets the threshold for joinder in this matter
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant union qualifies as a necessary party for joinder under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
The application for joinder was allowed; the applicant is a necessary party because it now commands the simple majority of the respondent's unionisable employees under section 54(1) and (2) of the Labour Relations Act and the suit cannot be effectively resolved without it.
The court reviewed section 54 of the LRA, which obliges an employer to recognise only a union representing a simple majority of unionisable employees. Payroll evidence (RSD-4) showed the applicant had 34 members against the claimant's 11, and the respondent had written to the National Labour Board seeking revocation of the claimant's recognition agreement (RSD-5). Given the mass defections, the applicant holds the legal mandate to negotiate terms of service and its absence would prevent effective resolution of the dispute.
Legal principles established
#- A party is only to be joined in a suit if such joinder is necessary to enable the court to effectively determine the suit (Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPR).
- An employer has no obligation to engage a trade union for collective bargaining unless that union represents a simple majority of unionisable employees (section 54(1) LRA).
Court orders
#- 1.Kenya County Government Workers Union joined as an interested party in the suit to enable it to file a substantive response to and submissions on the Claimant's suit
- 2.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 3 and 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 17 of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2016; Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Article 159(2) of the Constitution
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.
Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a party is only to be joined in a suit if such joinder is necessary so as to enable the Court to efiectively determine the suit.
I believe that the applicant is a necessary party to the proceedings before me since it is the correct union to negotiate terms of service on behalf of the stafi of the respondent by dint of section 54 (1) and (2) of the Labour Relations Act.
The dispute herein cannot be efiectively resolved without the applicant who has the legal mandate from the majority of the unionisable stafi to represent them.
In view of the foregoing matters, I find that the application has merits and it is allowed as prayed. Costs in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the cause number, the full names of the claimant union, or the full name of the respondent; parties identified only by role.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial, Food & Allied Workers v Murang’a West Water & Sanitation Company Limited; Kenya County Government Workers Union (Intended Interested Party) (Cause E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 381 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/381/eng@2025-02-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.