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 OutElection Petition No. E016 of 2026

Wekesa Cleophas & 5 others v Kenya National Private Security Workers Union & 2 others; Registrar of Trade Unions & another (Interested Parties)

Employment & Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Kisii
23 September 2026
NMNzioki wa Makau
2,734 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court struck out a union election challenge because it was filed using the wrong procedure, and the six petitioners must pay costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The six Petitioners challenged the national elections of the Kenya National Private Security Workers Union and the election of the officials named as 3rd Respondent. The Respondents raised a sixteen-ground Preliminary Objection seeking striking out of the Petition, arguing res judicata (a prior Kisumu ELRC Petition No. E010 of 2026 by the 6th Petitioner), sub judice (a pending Eldoret ELRC Cause No. E004 of 2026 by the 4th Petitioner), want of jurisdiction because the dispute is a trade union election dispute falling exclusively under section 34(4) of the Labour Relations Act and the ELRC (Trade Union Election Disputes) Procedure and Practice Directions, 2025, non-compliance with the mandatory pleading, timeline and security-for-costs requirements of those Directions, abuse of process and forum shopping. The Petitioners countered that the original Petition predated the elections, was withdrawn as overtaken by events, and that leave to amend had aligned it with the Practice Directions; they also argued the objections turned on disputed facts unsuitable for a preliminary objection. The Court framed four issues, chief among them whether the Petition was properly before it. It held the Petition, filed as an ordinary petition, did not comply with section 34(4) of the Labour Relations Act or the 2025 Practice Directions and was therefore incapable of properly invoking the Court's jurisdiction over the electoral outcome. The sub judice question was left as academic. The Preliminary Objection was upheld, the Petition struck out with costs against the six Petitioners. The Court noted the Respondents had incorrectly cited the earlier Sakwa ruling.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Petition before the Court is properly before it
  2. 2.If the answer to the foregoing is affirmative, whether the matter is sub judice
  3. 3.What orders can lie
  4. 4.Who is to meet the costs

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Petition properly invoked the Court's jurisdiction

Holding

It did not; the dispute is a trade union election dispute governed exclusively by section 34(4) of the Labour Relations Act and the 2025 Practice Directions, and the Petition was filed as an ordinary petition.

Reasoning

The Court held that the elections took place countrywide and the Petition sought to challenge the electoral outcome. Such a challenge must be brought under the special election dispute regime. Because the Petition was filed as an ordinary petition without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Practice Directions, it was incapable of properly invoking the Court's jurisdiction.

p. 17
02

Whether the matter is sub judice given pending proceedings in Eldoret ELRC Cause No. E004 of 2026

Holding

The Court declined to determine the sub judice question as academic once jurisdiction failed.

Reasoning

Having found that the jurisdiction of the Court was not properly invoked, the Court reasoned that inquiring into the sub judice issue would be an academic exercise in futility, since an incompetent petition could not proceed regardless of parallel proceedings.

p. 17

Legal principles established

#
  • A trade union election dispute must be brought as an Election Petition pursuant to section 34(4) of the Labour Relations Act and the ELRC (Trade Union Election Disputes) Procedure and Practice Directions, 2025; a petition filed as an ordinary petition does not properly invoke the Court's jurisdiction over the electoral outcome.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection by the Respondents is upheld
  2. 2.The Petition is struck out with costs against the 6 Petitioners

The bench

#

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

NM
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution establishing the Employment and Labour Relations Court (implied); dispute held to fall under section 34(4) of the Labour Relations Act

Relief refused

#

Continuation/prosecution of the Election Petition challenging the union's national elections

Petition filed as an ordinary petition, not complying with section 34(4) of the Labour Relations Act and the 2025 Practice Directions, hence jurisdiction not properly invoked

p. 17

Costs

Petition struck out with costs against the 6 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.

It was filed as an ordinary petition and therefore did not comply with section 34(4) of the Labour Relations Act as well as Paragraphs 5(1), (2), (3) (a), 6(1)(c), (d), (e) and 8 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Trade Union Election Disputes) Procedure and Practice Directions, 2025.
p. 17Non-compliance with the statutory election dispute regime
The Court returns that the Preliminary objection by the Respondents is merited and the Petition herein is struck out with costs against the 6 Petitioners.
p. 17Final orders - striking out and costs
Having found the jurisdiction of the Court was not properly invoked, it would be an academic exercise in futility to attempt to ascertain whether this incompetent Petition is sub judice.
p. 17Sub judice issue rendered academic

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Station discrepancy: cause styled 'AT KISII' but delivered at Kisumu

minor

Date of elections inconsistent: submissions say 7th February 2026, disposition says January 2026

minor

Neutral citation not provided in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wekesa Cleophas & 5 others v Kenya National Private Security Workers Union & 2 others; Registrar of Trade Unions & another (Interested Parties)", Case Analysis (2026). Election Petition No. E016 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2494/eng@2026-09-23

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