Republic v Secretary General, KUPPET & 6 others; Nakuru KUPPET Branch Executive Committee (Interested Party); Vivian Chepkemoi Towett (Ex-parte Applicant)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed a teacher's challenge to KUPPET's Nakuru branch elections because she used the wrong legal procedure.
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 judicial review application is proper to challenge the conduct of the union elections
- 2.Whether the 7th Respondent contravened provisions of the Labour Relations Act sections 48(6), 48(7) and 48(8)
- 3.Whether the 1st Respondent contravened KUPPET constitution article 13.0(a)(vi)
- 4.Whether the 1st Respondent complied with the Labour Relations Act section 34(5)
- 5.Whether non-compliance with the Labour Relations Act and KUPPET constitution rendered the elections invalid
- 6.Whether allowing ineligible teachers to vote rendered the elections invalid
- 7.Whether there was a systematic arrangement for bribery to influence the elections
- 8.Whether it was proper for a member of Parliament and UDA Deputy Secretary General to supervise elections
Key legal issues
#Whether judicial review was a proper vehicle to challenge the union elections
Improper; the applicant should have filed an election petition under section 34(4) LRA and the 2025 Practice Directions, following the court's prior position in Lengoyiap.
The court reaffirmed its earlier holding in Republic v Registrar of Trade Unions; Lengoyiap that election disputes must be brought by election petition, which allows testing of evidence through cross-examination. Leave granted at Nakuru to file judicial review proceedings did not cure the defect. The court declined to depart from that position.
Whether the merits of the Nakuru KUPPET branch election were already decided
Yes; Justice Rika in Rono v Secretary-General, KUPPET examined and upheld the validity of the same elections, rendering the cause res judicata with no live controversy.
In Rono (JR E002 of 2026) the same branch election was challenged on agency placement and discrimination grounds. Justice Rika found no disadvantage to teachers from agency status, rejected the discrimination claim as preposterous, and declined to quash the results or order fresh elections. Although that case was withdrawn on the eve of judgment, the merits were pronounced upon.
Legal principles established
#- The proper procedure to challenge a trade union election is an election petition under section 34(4) of the Labour Relations Act as guided by the 2025 ELRC Trade Union Election Disputes Procedure and Practice Directions, not judicial review.
- Judicial review proceedings under Order 53 are limited to process, not merit.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 22nd March 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs
- 3.The file is marked as closed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Leave granted under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules for judicial review; Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over labour relations disputes
Relief refused
#Orders of certiorari quashing the Nakuru KUPPET branch election process and results
Application incompetent - proper procedure was an election petition under section 34(4) LRA and the 2025 Practice Directions; merits already decided in Rono
Orders of prohibition against implementing the election results and national elections
No live controversy; validity of the elections upheld by Justice Rika in Rono
Orders of mandamus compelling fresh branch elections and rectification of registers
Application held incompetent and res judicata
Stay of election results and suspension of register changes
Application dismissed
Costs
Each party to bear its 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.
The proper way to approach the court was by election petition under 34(4) of the Labour Relations Act, which provides that disputes arising from the election of trade union officials, or connected directly or indirectly to elections, may be referred to the Court
The ex parte applicant ought to have complied with the procedural rules and filed the election petition. I say so even taking cognisance that she was given leave of the court (Nakuru) to file the judicial review proceedings.
Judicial review proceedings under Section 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules is limited to process and not merit.
The application is held as incompetent for noncompliance with procedure and further the cause is res judicata pursuant to Rono v Secretary-General, KUPPET & 6 others [2026] KEELRC 1858 (KLR)
The Notice of Motion dated 22 nd March 2026 is dismissed. Each party to bear own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated 25 September 2026 at end but styled as delivered in a cause numbered E019 of 2026 with leave granted 9 March 2026; heading says 'AT NAIROBI' while body references Nakuru.
Court relies on Rono as res judicata despite noting the case was withdrawn before judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Secretary General, KUPPET & 6 others; Nakuru KUPPET Branch Executive Committee (Interested Party); Vivian Chepkemoi Towett (Ex-parte Applicant)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Application No. E019 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2723/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.