Kudheiha Workers Union v Board of Governor Mukurweini Technical Training Institute & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E052 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2208 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to force an employer to recognise a union lacking majority membership, but protected workers' right to join and recruit freely.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether as at the time of filing this suit, the claimant had recruited into membership a simple majority of the respondent's unionisable staff.
- 2.Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant had a simple majority at the time of filing suit
No. Seven of the 18 recruited members validly withdrew, reducing membership to 11 of 22 (50 percent), below the simple majority required by section 54 of the LRA.
Section 54(1) requires a simple majority for recognition. Seven employees among the 18 recruited served notices of withdrawal between February and August 2024. The claimant produced no direct evidence of coercion; no member testified to being coerced. The court presumed the withdrawals were voluntary, and since membership had fallen to 50 percent as at 9th December 2024, the threshold was not met.
Whether the claimant proved coercion of members to withdraw
No. The claim of coercion failed for want of direct evidence.
The court adopted the Black's Law Dictionary definitions of coercion and undue influence, which require overbearing of a person's free will. The claimant merely presumed coercion from the drastic drop in membership after reporting a trade dispute, but called no member to testify that he or she was coerced to withdraw. Allegations of coercion of members by an employer must be proved by direct evidence.
Whether the claimant was entitled to an injunction against victimisation of union members
Yes. The right to join a trade union is constitutionally guaranteed, justifying an injunction despite the failure of the recognition claim.
Although the recognition prayer failed on the numbers, the court held that the right to join a trade union is granted by the Constitution. The claimant therefore qualified for an injunction restraining the respondent from intimidating, coercing, victimizing and harassing union members, and was left free to continue recruiting.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must recognise a trade union for collective bargaining only if it represents the simple majority of unionisable employees
- Freedom of association includes both the right to join and the right to withdraw from a trade union; absent evidence of coercion, withdrawal is presumed voluntary
Court orders
#- 1.An order of injunction to restrain the respondent from intimidating, coercing, victimizing and harassing union members.
- 2.An order that the claimant is at liberty to continue recruiting more members from the respondents unionisable staff.
- 3.The claimant is awarded costs of the suit plus interest.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and the Labour Relations Act (trade dispute under section 54 following unresolved conciliation)
Relief refused
#An order compelling the respondent to sign a recognition agreement
The claimant had only 50 percent of unionisable staff as members at the time of filing, below the simple majority threshold under section 54 of the LRA
Costs
The claimant is awarded costs of the suit plus interest.
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.
I enter judgment for the claimant as follows: a. An order of injunction to restrain the respondent from intimidating, coercing, victimizing and harassing union members. b. An order that the claimant is at liberty to continue recruiting more members from the respondents unionisable staff. c. The claimant is awarded costs of the suit plus interest.
I find that the claimant did not meet the legal threshold of a simple majority for the employer to grant recognition to it. Consequently, it is free to make further recruitment and seek recognition afresh under section 54 of the Act.
I find that the Claimant has not produced any direct evidence of the alleged coercion. None of its members testified herein that he/she was coerced to withdraw from union membership.
The main requirement for grant of recognition by employers to trade unions, is that the trade unions must have recruited a simple majority of the employer's unionisable employees.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kudheiha Workers Union v Board of Governor Mukurweini Technical Training Institute & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E052 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2208 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 4th December 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2208/eng@2025-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.