Transport Workers Union (K) v Sanghani & another (Cause E829 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1779 (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 1st and 2nd Respondents failed to remit deducted trade union dues contrary to sections 48 and 50 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007
- 2.Whether the Respondents should be convicted and fined under sections 48(2), (3), 50(8) and 82 of the Labour Relations Act
- 3.Whether the Union is entitled to payment of unremitted dues totalling Kshs 2,257,200/- and future dues
Key legal issues
#Whether the Union could claim remittance of dues while another union held a recognition agreement
The Court declined to grant any orders because the existence of a recognition agreement with the Kenya Quarry and Mine Workers Union created a legal doubt as to whether the Union could assert organisational or bargaining rights at the workplace
The Respondents' uncontroverted assertion that the 1st Respondent had a recognition agreement and a CBA with another union meant the Union's claim to dues deducted for its members raised a threshold legal question. The Court found it inappropriate to grant the statutory convictions, fines and payment orders sought while that doubt subsisted and before the statutory recognition mechanisms had been engaged.
Whether the dispute was premature
Yes - the employer had not sought revocation of the rival recognition agreement before the National Labour Board, and the Union had not reported a recognition trade dispute to the Cabinet Secretary as required by section 54(6)
Section 54(5) allows an employer to seek revocation of a recognition agreement, and section 54(6) requires recognition disputes to go to conciliation. Neither statutory route had been utilised: the Respondents had not approached the National Labour Board, and the Union had not reported a dispute to the Cabinet Secretary. The Cause was therefore premature.
Legal principles established
#- A trade union seeking recognition must recruit a simple majority of the employer's unionisable employees
- A trade dispute over recognition must first be referred to conciliation under section 54(6) of the Labour Relations Act before court proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 30 September 2024 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 48, 50, 54 and 82 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007; section 19(6) of the Employment Act; section 28 of the Employment and Labour (Procedure) Rules 2016
Relief refused
#Conviction of the Respondents for deducting and failing to remit trade union dues
The existence of a recognition agreement with a rival union created a legal doubt about asserting organisational rights, and the dispute over recognition was premature, not having gone to conciliation or the National Labour Board
Payment of unremitted dues of Kshs 2,257,200/- and subsequent monthly dues
The Motion was dismissed in its entirety; the Union had not pursued the statutory recognition dispute route
Fines against the 1st and 2nd Respondents under section 82 of the Labour Relations Act
Dismissed on the same grounds of premature assertion of organisational rights
Costs
The Motion dated 30 September 2024 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
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.
On that singular ground, the Court declines to grant any of the orders sought.
The Motion dated 30 September 2024 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
to be granted recognition by an employer, a trade union should recruit a simple majority of the employer's unionisable employees.
To that extent, the instant Cause or dispute is also premature.
Issues in the judgment
#The claimant is referred to variably as 'the Union', 'applicant' and 'Claimant' within the same judgment
The Union's purported submissions were in fact a letter addressed to the Conciliator, so no proper submissions by the Union were on record
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Transport Workers Union (K) v Sanghani & another (Cause E829 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1779 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1779/eng@2025-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.