Odoyo v Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU); Registrar of Trade Unions (Interested Party) (Petition E013 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3746 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment and Labour Relations Court struck down several UASU constitutional provisions, confirming that union rules must guarantee members' democratic election rights.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court has jurisdiction to determine the petition herein
- 2.Whether the prayers in the Petition are merited
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELRC over challenges to a trade union's constitution
The court has jurisdiction; the dispute arises from the Labour Relations Act and involves labour relations rights within the court's exclusive jurisdiction.
The Respondent argued internal union affairs should be free of judicial interference absent illegality or rights violations. The court held the dispute arises from the Labour Relations Act and concerns labour relations rights, expressly assigned to the ELRC under section 12 of the ELRC Act and Article 162 of the Constitution, following Mugendi v Kenyatta University and USIU v Attorney General.
Sufficiency of pleading of the constitutional petition
The petition met the Anarita Karimi Njeru and Mumo Matemu threshold of precision.
The Respondent invoked Anarita Karimi Njeru and Mumo Matemu on vagueness. The court found the Petitioner made specific reference to the statutory and constitutional provisions allegedly infringed and explained clearly how they were violated, satisfying both authorities.
Co-option of officials under Articles 8(c) and 19(f)
Unconstitutional and unlawful as they undermine members' rights to elect officials and violate section 34(2)(b).
The court noted there is no limit on the number of co-opted members and no restriction on their voting rights, giving the NEC and chapter officials unlimited power to co-opt unelected members, thereby undermining democratic governance of trade unions and members' rights to elect representatives of their choice contrary to section 34(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.
Undefined 'delegate' in Article 6(c) and eligibility under Article 9(c)
A serious omission; delegates participate in the supreme organ yet their mode of election is not provided, failing the First Schedule requirement and Article 41(2)(c).
Article 6(c) does not define who a delegate is or how delegates are elected. Article 6(d) provides chapters shall elect delegates but the provision is ambiguous. The First Schedule to the Labour Relations Act requires constitutions to provide for appointment or election of officers; the failure undermines members' participation rights under Article 41(2)(c). Amendment of Article 6(d) was ordered.
Two-term limit in Article 9(d) and differential Trustee tenure in Article 11(c)
Article 9(d) null and void as a term limit; Article 11(c) null and void for discriminating between Trustees and other officials contrary to Article 27.
Section 34(2)(b) requires election of all officials every five years with no term limits. Relying on ILO Freedom of Association Digest principles, legislation limiting re-election violates freedom of association. The differential treatment of Trustees lacked statutory basis and violated Article 27. The burden of proving compliance lay on the Respondent, which produced no evidence.
Eligibility restriction in Article 14(i) requiring 12 months' membership
Null and void for discriminating against new members and incumbents, contrary to section 33 and section 34(2)(a).
Section 33 only disqualifies members more than 13 weeks in arrears. A 12-month membership requirement conflicts with the Act and unfairly discriminates against new members, and between incumbents (who necessarily exceed 12 months) and other candidates, prohibited by section 34(2)(a).
Articles 14(e), 14(g) and 14(h) on candidacy and electoral machinery
Not constitutional or statutory violations; administrative concerns requiring amendment.
The court held Article 14(e) is not inconsistent with the Act since national elections operate through a delegate system, though it could be improved. Articles 14(g) and (h) raise conflict-of-interest and manageability concerns (an electoral committee of 38 members), but these are administrative issues compromising rather than violating elections; amendment was directed.
Compliance of the constitutional amendments with the union's own Article 23 amendment procedure
The Respondent failed to prove compliance; amendments did not comply with the union constitution.
The Petitioner averred there was no evidence of secret balloting or membership consultation, relying on Mohamed v Union of Kenya Civil Servants. The Respondent merely asserted compliance without adducing evidence. Since the burden of proving compliance rests on the party alleging it, the court found the amendments non-compliant.
Legal principles established
#- All union officials including Trustees must be subjected to elections every five years; there is no statutory term limit for any category of union officials
- The ELRC has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes relating to labour relations rights in the constitution of a trade union
- Where compliance with a constitutional safeguard is contested, the burden rests with the party alleging compliance to produce evidence of it
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that Articles 8(c) and 19(f) of the Revised UASU Constitution allowing co-option of members by the NEC and Chapter Executive Committees are unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void
- 2.Declaration that Article 9(d) is null and void to the extent that it limits the term of office of Officials
- 3.Declaration that Article 11(c) is null and void in so far as it limits the term of office of Trustees and creates a differential between the term of office of Trustees and other union officials
- 4.Declaration that Article 14(i) is null and void in so far as it discriminates against new members who wish to vie for elective positions
- 5.Article 6(d) to be amended to remove the ambiguity in the procedure for election of delegates
- 6.Article 14(e) to be amended to remove the restriction of eligibility to vie for national positions by members who are not delegates
- 7.Article 14(g) to be amended to remove the ambiguity with regard to identification of returning officers
- 8.Article 14(h) to be amended to provide for a manageable number of electoral committee and define roles of returning officers
- 9.The Interested Party (Registrar of Trade Unions) directed to ensure compliance with the judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Deletion of Article 6(c)
The court instead directed amendment of the related delegate-election provision (Article 6(d)) rather than wholesale deletion
Nullification of Articles 14(e), 14(g) and 14(h)
The court found these raise administrative, not constitutional or statutory, concerns and directed amendment rather than nullification
Permanent injunction restraining enforcement of the impugned articles
The court was conscious that union elections were due from January 2026 and nullifying all cited provisions could cripple the elections
Costs of the suit
Each party ordered to bear its own costs
Costs
Each party shall bear its costs of this suit.
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 following provisions of the Revised Constitution of the Respondent are unconstitutional and unlawful and are therefore declared null and void:
The following provisions of the Respondent’s Constitution are to be amended as specified:
Each party shall bear its costs of this suit.
The two provisions read together imply that all union oficials including Trustees must be subjected to elections every five years.
where compliance with a constitutional safeguard is contested, the burden rests with the party alleging that there was compliance to produce evidence of the same.
A ban on the re-election of trade union oficials is not compatible with Convention No. 87.
This means that delegates from chapters participate in the supreme organ of the Respondent yet the mode of their election is not provided for in the Constitution of the Respondent.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odoyo v Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU); Registrar of Trade Unions (Interested Party) (Petition E013 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3746 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 27th October 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3746/eng@2025-12-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.