Kenya Ports Authority v Dock Workers Union (Cause E099 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 981 (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 strike notice issued by the respondent on 10 November 2021 complied with section 76 of the Labour Relations Act and the parties' IRM/JIC dispute resolution mechanisms
- 2.Whether the respondent could lawfully issue a strike notice agitating for third parties (ex-Kenya Ferry Services employees) outside its recognition mandate
- 3.Whether the claimant is engaged in an essential service such that industrial action is highly regulated
- 4.Whether the declaratory and prohibitory orders sought should issue, and on costs
Key legal issues
#Lawfulness of the 10 November 2021 strike notice under section 76 of the LRA
The notice was unlawful and unprotected: it did not follow the IRM/JIC mechanisms, did not report the dispute to the Minister under section 62 of the LRA, and was issued within 7 days without the sanction of the court.
The parties are bound by a Recognition Agreement, IRM and JIC premised on the LRA and Employment Act. The claimant is an essential service under section 81 of the LRA, so industrial action is highly regulated under section 78(1)(f). The respondent had to issue notice, refer unresolved grievances to the Minister for conciliation, and only proceed to court; issuing and threatening industrial action within 7 days bypassed these procedures, rendering it unprotected.
Industrial action over third parties (ex-Kenya Ferry Services employees)
The respondent cannot lawfully agitate industrial action for third parties; such employees should file their own cases, and the respondent's recognition is not transferable.
Under section 76 of the LRA, a notice of industrial action may only be issued for the union's members. The ex-Kenya Ferry Services employees were not within the respondent's recognition mandate with the claimant, and the issue was never a JIC agenda item. Agitating for them without authority is outside the LRA and unlawful, null and void.
Costs
Costs awarded to the claimant because the respondent failed to regularize its attendance in the proceedings.
The respondent's documents filed by Leonard Rufus Ochieng were expunged as irregular and no effort was made to reinstate them or regularize attendance, leaving the claim unopposed; the claimant was therefore entitled to costs.
Legal principles established
#- Under section 76 of the LRA a person may only participate in a lawful strike sanctioned by the court; a strike notice that fails to adhere to the LRA is unprotected
- A union may only issue a notice of industrial action for its own members and not third parties; its recognition is not transferable
- Where parties are bound under a Recognition Agreement, disputes must first be referred to internal workplace regulation mechanisms before industrial action
Court orders
#- 1.A declaratory order that the respondent's notice to strike through a letter dated 10 November 2021 is unlawful and unprotected and contrary to section 76 of the Labour Relations Act
- 2.A mandatory prohibitory order restraining the respondent, their officials, agents and or members from taking part in, calling, instigating or inciting others to take part in an unprotected strike or any form of industrial action under the notice issued on 10 November 2021
- 3.Respondent to meet the costs due to the claimant in this suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over employment and labour relations disputes; dispute concerns the Labour Relations Act and a Recognition Agreement/CBA
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.
A declaratory order is hereby issued that the respondent's notice to strike through a letter dated 10 November 2021 is unlawful and unprotected and contrary to section 76 of the Labour Relations Act;
A mandatory prohibitory order is hereby issued restraining the respondent, their oficials, agents and or members from taking part in, calling, instigating or inciting others to take part in an unprotected strike or any form of industrial action under the notice issued on 10 November 2021.
Respondent to meet the costs due to the claimant in this suit.
Taking industrial action, threatening to take one without the court's sanction, is unprotected.
The respondent's recognition of the claimant is not transferable to third parties.
Agitating for an industrial action within 7 days of such notice is to engage in an unprotected industrial action without the sanction of the court.
Issues in the judgment
#The full name of the respondent trade union is not stated anywhere in the judgment; it is referred to only as 'the respondent', a trade union.
The claim number is not stated in the judgment text; only the filing date (15 November 2021) is given.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Ports Authority v Dock Workers Union (Cause E099 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 981 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Claim filed 15 November 2021 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/981/eng@2025-03-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.