Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutMemorandum of Claim dated 15th October 2020 (number not stated in judgment)

Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Hypermart Limited (Ramtons) (Cause 663 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2558 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 September 2025
LNLINNET NDOLO
1,356 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out a union's entire redundancy claim because it could not prove the affected workers were actually its members.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers Union brought a claim on behalf of fourteen named employees alleging un-procedural redundancy by the Respondent employer, reportedly occasioned by the Covid-19 pandemic and the Government's acquisition of the Respondent's premises. The Union sought declarations of unfairness, an order enforcing the Last In First Out selection criterion, a permanent injunction against victimisation of union members, reinstatement or terminal dues, twelve months' salary as compensation and costs. The Respondent denied targeting fourteen employees, asserting that twelve terminations were effected procedurally under Section 40 of the Employment Act, that terminal dues were paid, and that no recognition agreement existed, with a Conciliator having found the Union lacked a simple majority. At trial the Union called its National Organising Secretary, Mike Oranga, and the Respondent called its Senior Operations Manager, Simon Muia. The Court framed a single decisive issue: the Union's locus standi. Relying on Modern Soap Factory v Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union, Judge Linnet Ndolo held that while a union may sue for its members without a recognition agreement, contested membership is a question of fact requiring evidence. None of the fourteen employees testified and no documentary proof of membership was produced. The Court therefore struck out the entire claim and, in the interest of social justice and industrial harmony, directed each party to bear its own costs. Judgment was delivered virtually at Nairobi on 25th September 2025.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Claimant Union has the locus standi to bring the claim on behalf of the 14 named persons

Key legal issues

#
01

Locus standi of a trade union to sue on behalf of members whose membership is contested

Holding

The Claimant Union failed to establish locus standi because the contested union membership of the 14 employees was not proved; none of them testified and no documentary evidence of membership was adduced

Reasoning

The court affirmed that a union may sue for its members regardless of recognition. However, following Modern Soap Factory, membership is a question of fact and where contested requires evidence. The Respondent contested membership of Nelson Ngugi (who disclaimed any claim) and of Paul Ng'ang'a, John Kuria and Joseph Wachira (who denounced membership). None of the 14 testified and no membership documents were produced, so the claim could not stand.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A trade union has locus standi to sue on behalf of its members irrespective of a recognition agreement, but where membership is contested, it must be proved by evidence
  • Where union membership is contested, documentary and testimonial evidence is required to prove it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is struck out for failure to establish locus standi
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

LN
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, Section 40, and the Labour Relations Act (trade dispute referred to the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Labour)

Relief refused

#

All remedies sought: declaration of unfair redundancy, LIFO order, permanent injunction, reinstatement or terminal dues, 12 months' compensation and costs

The Claimant failed to prove the union membership of the 14 named employees, none of whom testified, and therefore lacked locus standi; the claim was struck out

p. 4

Costs

Each party will bear their own costs

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.

It is settled in law that a trade union is clothed with the locus standi to sue on behalf of its members, irrespective of whether or not it has a recognition agreement with the employer.
p. 4Trade union locus standi
In the circumstances, I find and hold that the Claimant Union failed to establish the necessary locus standi to bring this claim. The only thing to do is strike out the claim, which I hereby do.
p. 4Disposition - claim struck out
In the interest of social justice and industrial harmony, I direct that each party will bear their own costs.
p. 4Costs order

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Judgment states redundancy letters were dated 28th October 2020 while the Claimant's case refers to letters dated 28th September 2020 terminating employment on 30th September 2020

minor

The case number of the Memorandum of Claim is not stated anywhere in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Hypermart Limited (Ramtons) (Cause 663 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2558 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 15th October 2020 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2558/eng@2025-09-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.