Bakery Confectionary Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union (K) v Karibu Flour Mills Limited (Cause 132 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1089 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan union lost its bid to force recognition and dues deductions because it relied on stale membership records instead of proving current members.
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 claimant attained a simple majority of the respondent's unionisable employees entitling it to recognition under section 54 of the LRA
- 2.Whether the respondent should be ordered to deduct and remit trade union dues under section 48 of the LRA
- 3.Whether the claimant's evidence, based on check-off forms dated 30 September 2022, suffices to support the orders sought
Key legal issues
#Entitlement to recognition under section 54 LRA
While section 54 obliges an employer to recognise a union with a simple majority, the union must prove current membership; stale check-off forms are insufficient
The court accepted the claimant's pleaded 86 of 100 employees but noted no desegregation of numbers and no evidence of membership status between 30 September 2022 and the filing of the claim on 4 December 2023. Given the fluidity of employment, the shop floor changes daily, and recognition cannot issue on the strength of dated records alone.
Adequacy of proof by filed records and affidavit
A verified affidavit and filed records, without a witness statement, do not suffice to justify mandatory recognition and dues orders
The claimant relied only on the filed records and the Verified Affidavit of Danchael Mwangure, with no witness statement. The court held that issuing the orders on such a record would not meet the ends of justice given possible shop floor changes, and directed the union to return to the shop floor to audit and ascertain membership month by month.
Protection against victimisation
Employees listed in the check-off forms are protected under Article 41 and sections 46(d) and (h) of the Employment Act from victimisation for pursuing the claim
The court, of its own motion, drew the respondent's attention to section 46(d) and (h) of the Employment Act, which bar unfair reasons for disciplinary action, including trade union participation and legal proceedings against an employer. The employees should not be victimised regardless of the outcome.
Legal principles established
#- Recognition under section 54 of the LRA requires a trade union to ascertain its current membership within the unionisable cadre; the process is not mechanical
- Employees who assert their rights at work under Article 41 of the Constitution, whether successful or not, should not be victimised
Court orders
#- 1.The orders sought (recognition agreement and deduction/remittance of dues) shall not be issued as couched
- 2.The claimant shall return to the shop floor and audit its membership, obtaining monthly numbers as a basis for the simple majority claimed
- 3.The claimant is at liberty to apply the provisions of Section 52 of the LRA (direct payment of dues by members)
- 4.No orders on costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction over trade union recognition and dues disputes; sections 48, 52, 54 of the Labour Relations Act; Article 41 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Order directing the respondent to execute a formal recognition agreement within 14 days
Membership figures were not desegregated and nothing demonstrated the current status of membership; reliance on filed records alone would not meet the ends of justice
Order requiring the respondent to deduct and remit trade union dues
Same evidential failure - fluidity of employment since the check-off forms of 30 September 2022 was not addressed
Costs of the suit
Court declined to award costs
Costs
No orders on costs (each party to bear own costs implied)
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.
Accordingly, the orders sought shall not be issued as couched. The claimant shall return to the shop fioor and audit its membership. There will be no orders on costs.
However, this process is not mechanical. The trade union must ascertain its membership within the unionable cadre vis-à-vis the total number of employees of the entity who are its members.
To secure each party and to allow the court not to issue an empty order of recognition, the claimant shall return to the shop fioor, ascertain its membership and seek recognition by the respondent.
With the fiuidity of employment, the shop fioor changes daily, weekly, and monthly.
Whether successful or not, the action taken should not be a source of victimization, as such action is protected in law.
Issues in the judgment
#Case title/case number of the parties not printed in the extracted judgment text; parties identified only descriptively
Section 52 excerpt as reproduced contains an apparent drafting/typographical error ('constitution of The trade union')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bakery Confectionary Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union (K) v Karibu Flour Mills Limited (Cause 132 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1089 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated on record as reproduced. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1089/eng@2025-04-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.