Musyoka v Kenya Union of Post – Primary Teachers Machakos Branch & 10 others; Registrar of Trade Unions (Interested Party) (Petition E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2949 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled KUPPET cannot expel members, restoring Yvonne Musyoka to her union post after an unfair disciplinary process.
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 petition was premature for want of exhaustion of internal remedies under Article 21.0 of the Union Constitution
- 2.Whether the petition met the threshold for a constitutional petition with sufficient precision
- 3.Whether the expulsion provisions of the union constitution (Article 21.2.0) were an unconstitutional limitation of the right to form, join and participate in trade union affairs under Article 41 as read with Articles 36 and 24
- 4.Whether the expulsion of the petitioner was procedurally and substantively fair, lawful and constitutional
- 5.Whether the petitioner's rights were violated as alleged
Key legal issues
#Exhaustion of internal remedies
The petition was not premature; the NGC had resolved disputes be withdrawn and pursued through conciliation, and the appeal path was conficted since the Secretary General who was to cause the appeal to be heard was seriously conficted
The Court found that the NGC's decision of 29.05.2024 that parties reconcile was final and undisputed; continuing the disciplinary process was contrary to it. Further, the petitioner questioned the legality of the entire procedure, which fell outside the internal process, and the constitution offered no alternative path given the Secretary General's confict.
Constitutionality of expulsion clause in union constitution
Article 21.2.0 of the KUPPET constitution permitting expulsion is an unconstitutional limitation of Articles 41 and 36 rights as read with Article 24
Article 24 permits limitation of rights only by statute; the First Schedule to the Labour Relations Act does not mandate expulsion provisions and the Act nowhere authorises expulsion. Instead section 4 gives the member the right to leave the union. Expulsion is therefore unconstitutional and the expulsion of the petitioner was excessive and harsh.
Fairness of the disciplinary process and evidential sufficiency
The expulsion was procedurally and substantively unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional; the misconduct was not established because minutes of 16.12.2023 were not produced and an ad hoc conficted committee was used
The union constitution requires confirmed minutes as conclusive evidence of business transacted, but respondents failed to exhibit minutes of 16.12.2023. The ad hoc committee suffered unrebutted confict of interest, and under Article 20.1.0(h) any misconduct at the meeting fell for the chairperson's reprimand, making the disciplinary process double jeopardy.
Violation of rights against torture and inhuman treatment
The continued subjection of the petitioner to the graphic events of her assault by the Secretary General violated her right to freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment
The Court granted the declaration sought by the petitioner regarding the graphic events of her assault by the Secretary General on 16.12.2023 as part of the judgment entered in her favour.
Legal principles established
#- The right to join and continue as a trade union member is foundational and includes the right not to be expelled
- Expulsion from a trade union is not authorised by the Labour Relations Act and an expulsion clause in a union constitution is an unconstitutional limitation of Articles 41 and 36 rights
- A union member, not the union, holds the right to terminate membership
- A trade union constitution constitutes a contract between the union and its members and must comply with the Constitution and statute
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the failure by the Secretary General to investigate the allegations and table a report before the NEB violated the petitioner's rights under Articles 10, 25, 47 and 50 and section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015
- 2.Declaration that the process culminating in the letters dated 11.11.2024 and 14.11.2024 was illegal, unprocedural and null and void
- 3.Declaration that the impugned proceedings were arbitrary, capricious and in violation of natural justice and fair hearing
- 4.Declaration that the expulsion did not meet the criteria under Article 24 as an unreasonable and unjustified limitation of Article 41 rights
- 5.Declaration that Article 21.2.0 of the union constitution providing for expulsion of members is unconstitutional and null and void
- 6.Declaration that subjecting the petitioner to the graphic events of her assault by the Secretary General violated her right to freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment
- 7.Order of certiorari quashing the show cause letter dated 30.12.2024
- 8.Order of certiorari quashing the decisions communicated by letters dated 26.11.2024 and 28.11.2024
- 9.Order reinstating the petitioner to union membership
- 10.Order reinstating the petitioner as Vice-Chairperson KUPPET Machakos Branch with full benefits, monthly allowance and operation funds until her full term or she is not re-elected
- 11.Order of injunction restraining the respondents from preventing, obstructing or interfering with the petitioner's work as Vice-Chairperson
- 12.Respondents to jointly or severally pay the petitioner's costs of the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitutional petition under Articles 10, 24, 25, 27, 28, 35, 36, 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015
Relief refused
#Damages for breach of constitutional rights and freedoms
The reinstatement orders return the petitioner to the position she would have been in and no submissions were made to guide the Court on quantum
Costs
The respondents to jointly or severally pay the petitioner's costs of the petition to be agreed or assessed by the taxing master.
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.
The court therefore finds that there is no statutory provision limiting a trade union membership once a worker has decided to join the trade union.
The Court returns that the Labour Relations Act, 2007 does not provide for limitations and applicable safeguards relating to employees’ membership to a trade union and the expulsion clause of the KUPPET union constitution is found to be an unconstitutional limitation to the petitioner’s or any other membership in the union.
The union constitution constitutes a contract between the union and its members.
It is found that the Article 20.1.0 (h) thus “(h) Any member who shall show disrespect to the Chairperson/out of order shall be reprimanded by the Chairperson.
The respondents to jointly or severally pay the petitioner’s costs of the petition to be agreed or assessed by the taxing master.
The order hereby issued reinstating the petitioner to union membership.
In conclusion judgment is hereby entered for the petitioner against the respondents as follows:
Issues in the judgment
#The final orders quash a show cause letter dated 30.12.2024, but the pleadings and evidence identify the show cause letter as dated 20.12.2023
The judgment refers to expulsion letters of 26.11.2024 and 25.11.2025 in the pleadings but the final orders quash letters dated 26.11.2024 and 28.11.2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Musyoka v Kenya Union of Post – Primary Teachers Machakos Branch & 10 others; Registrar of Trade Unions (Interested Party) (Petition E008 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2949 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt (petition as amended dated 06.12.2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2949/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.