Miano & 4 others v Misori & 12 others; Registrar of Trade Unions (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Constitutional Petition E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1838 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed KUPPET's attempt to cancel orders against it, confirming that being served and attending court through a lawyer means you were heard fairly.
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 impugned orders issued on 13th November 2024 should be set aside as irregular
Key legal issues
#Whether the interim orders of 13th November 2024 were irregularly obtained
The orders were regular; the respondents were served, attended court through counsel, and were heard before the interim orders were made and confirmed
The court record showed service on 5th and 8th November 2024 with an affidavit of service filed. Counsel for the respondents (Mr Nderi) appeared on 13th November 2024, addressed the court and sought 21 days to file a response. No response was filed; the interim orders were thereafter confirmed. The respondents were therefore afforded a hearing and could not claim they were condemned unheard.
Legal principles established
#- An irregular order is one made without service of court process or which condemns a party without a hearing
Court orders
#- 1.Notice of Motion dated 15th November 2024 dismissed with costs
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 (ELRC Procedure Rules referred to in delivery order)
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the court orders issued on 13th November 2024
The applicants were served and appeared through counsel; the orders were regular and they were not condemned unheard
Costs
Dismissed with costs (costs to the petitioners)
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.
An irregular order is one which results from a defect in procedure. It is a decision made without serving the opposite party with court process.
I reiterate that the applicants herein were not condemned unheard on 13th November 2024.
Consequently, I find no merits in Notice of Motion dated 15th November 2024 and proceed to dismiss it with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The affidavit supporting the motion is stated as sworn on 15th November 2014, which conflicts with the motion date of 15th November 2024; likely a typographical error
The ruling refers inconsistently to the applicants as both 'applicants' and 'respondents' - the respondents to the underlying petition are the applicants in the motion
The judgment states orders were 'granted on 13th November 2024' while the motion sought to set aside 'orders issued on 13th November 2024'; elsewhere the court notes it made exparte orders on 4th November 2024 and interim orders on 13th November 2024, which is internally consistent but the sequence should be read carefully
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Miano & 4 others v Misori & 12 others; Registrar of Trade Unions (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Constitutional Petition E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1838 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1838/eng@2025-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.