Kenneth Boro Ouma v The Secretary General, KUPPET Kenya & 3 others

states that he is a paid-up member of the 2nd Respondent’s Migori Branch hence he is entitled to participate in the 2026 election cycle. The Petitioner seeks, inter alia, orders restraining the Respondents from declaring, publishing, gazetting, or acting upon any results arising from the impugned election process; a mandatory order compelling the Respondents to avail a certified and authenticated membership/voters’ register for KUPPET Migori Branch together with a certified copy of the KUPPET Constitution relied upon in conducting the elections; and an order directing the Respondents to restart or regularise the election process in accordance with the law, the KUPPET Constitution, and the principles of free, fair, transparent, and accountable trade union elections. 2. The Petitioner avers that on 25th September 2025 the Registrar of Trade Unions issued a circular prescribing guidelines and timelines for KUPPET elections, scheduled to be conducted between 5th January and 31st March 2026. He further states that following a National Governing Council meeting held on 7th November 2025, the Migori Branch Page 2 of 17

page 2 of 17

Executive Secretary informed members through a WhatsApp communication that the branch elections would be held on 10th January 2026 at Migori TTC. According to the Petitioner, upon receiving the election notice he visited the Migori County Labour Office on 12th November 2025 to verify the certified membership/voters’ register, a certified copy of the KUPPET Constitution, and election records. He contends that officers at the Labour Office informed him that the office was not in possession of the requested documents. He thereafter wrote a formal letter dated 12th November 2025 requesting certified copies of the voters’ register and the Constitution, to which the County Labour Officer responded on 13 th November 2025 confirming that the office did not have the requested documents. The Petitioner further states that on 26th November 2025 the Secretary General of KUPPET issued another election notice confirming 10 th January 2026 as the election date for the Migori Branch but changing the venue to Sony Sugar Stadium, contradicted the earlier communication from the Branch Executive Secretary. He also avers that on or about 1 st December 2025 he telephoned the Page 3 of 17

page 3 of 17

Branch Executive Secretary, who informed him that the branch office did not possess the voters’ register. 3. The Petitioner deposes that, owing to the continued failure to obtain the relevant election documents, he lodged a formal complaint with the Registrar of Trade Unions on 4 th December 2025, which complaint was physically delivered on 5th December 2025. He states that the Registrar indicated that the matter would be taken up with the Secretary General of KUPPET and the Commissioner for Labour. He further avers that despite this intervention, the election process continued and the Union insisted that the elections would proceed. 4. The Petitioner contends that because the certified voters’ register and the certified KUPPET Constitution were not made available, he was unable to pay nomination fees within the stipulated period, although he remained willing and ready to comply once the documents were supplied. He maintains that neither the Union nor the Registrar of Trade Unions has furnished the requested documents. Page 4 of 17

page 4 of 17

5. It is the Petitioner’s case that the failure to avail the certified voters’ register and the governing Constitution renders the election process opaque, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to law, and that the elections are being conducted without the foundational documents necessary to guarantee a lawful electoral process. He asserts that unless the Court intervenes urgently, the Respondents will proceed with the elections and thereby violate his constitutional rights under Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution, rendering the petition and application nugatory. On that basis, the Petitioner seeks declarations that the election process is unlawful, orders compelling the Respondents to comply with the law and the KUPPET Constitution by availing the certified documents, orders restraining implementation of any election results arising from the impugned process, and costs of the application and petition. 6. The 1st and 2nd Respondents oppose the Petition and the application through the replying affidavit sworn by Mr. Akello Misori Secretary General of KUPPET. They contend that the proceedings are misconceived, incompetent, and constitute an abuse of the court process. It is their position that the Page 5 of 17

page 5 of 17

dispute is an ordinary labour dispute between a union member and his trade union, falling within section 12(1)(g) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, and that the Petitioner improperly invoked the Constitution contrary to the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. 7. The Respondents submit that the Petition discloses no reasonable cause of action and that the alleged violations of the Labour Relations Act and Article 47 of the Constitution are either outside the scope of the reliefs sought or are premature because the branch elections had not yet been conducted. They maintain that the election process has been undertaken in accordance with the law and the KUPPET Constitution. The Respondents further contend that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate his eligibility to contest or participate in the elections. They argue that he has not disclosed the office he intends to contest, nor has he proved that he is a fully paid-up member or a delegate where such status is required under the KUPPET Constitution. According to the Respondents, the Petitioner has only exhibited a payslip, which they contend is insufficient to establish the qualifications necessary to contest for union office. They Page 6 of 17

page 6 of 17

therefore contend that he lacks locus standi to institute the proceedings. 8. On the issue of the voters’ register, the Respondents acknowledge that the Petitioner sought access to the register but contend that every union member can independently verify his or her membership status through the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) portal, which reflects whether the member is fully paid up. They assert that the voters’ register is essentially a replica of the branch membership register and contains sensitive personal data of union members. They maintain that, in compliance with data protection principles, the register is made available immediately before the voting exercise and any disputes arising therefrom are addressed at the polling venue under the supervision of labour officers. The Respondents also submit that membership responsibility records lies for with maintaining the Branch branch Executive Secretary and not the Secretary General. They argue that the Migori Branch is semi-autonomous and that any request relating to branch records ought to have been pursued through the Branch Executive Secretary. In their view, the Page 7 of 17

page 7 of 17

Petitioner improperly directed his complaints to the Secretary General instead of the branch office responsible for custody of the membership records. 9. The Respondents further aver that the Petitioner has a history of litigation against KUPPET, including an earlier petition challenging Migori Branch elections on similar grounds relating to the voters’ register, which was dismissed by the Court. They contend that the present proceedings form part of a pattern of repeated litigation intended to interfere with union electoral processes. With regard to the KUPPET Constitution, the Respondents explain that amendments made in 2024 had been the subject of pending court proceedings and that the question as to which Constitution would govern the elections was awaiting judicial determination. They state that once judgment was delivered and the Union resumed office after the Christmas recess, the relevant communication and decree were circulated to the branches. They further contend that the Registrar of Trade Unions was a party to those proceedings and was aware of the applicable constitutional framework. Page 8 of 17

page 8 of 17

10. The Respondents also dismiss the complaint regarding the change of venue, arguing that branch elections may lawfully be conducted at any venue within Migori County provided adequate notice is given to members. They maintain that the Petitioner does not dispute that notice of the election date and venue was communicated. In conclusion, the Respondents assert that no law has been violated, that the Union has acted in compliance with the Labour Relations Act and the KUPPET Constitution, and that the application and Petition are frivolous, vexatious, and intended to delay or disrupt a lawfully organised union election. They accordingly urge the court to dismiss the application and Petition. 11. In a further affidavit sworn on 18th January 2026, the Petitioner denies the Respondents’ allegations and maintains that the election process was conducted without a certified voters’ register and an operative certified KUPPET Constitution. He contends that the 3rd and 4th Respondents failed to file responses and that the Respondents have not produced evidence showing that a valid voters’ register Page 9 of 17

page 9 of 17

existed or that nomination and verification procedures were properly undertaken. The Petitioner states that he intended to contest the position of Executive Secretary, Migori Branch, but was unable to pay nomination fees because of uncertainty regarding the applicable KUPPET Constitution, which was under judicial challenge until 18th December 2025. He argues that the union failed to provide the operative Constitution and voters’ register before the nomination deadline, thereby violating his rights under Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution and frustrating his participation in the elections. He further maintains that the TSC portal only confirms deduction of union dues and does not establish inclusion in the voters’ register. The Petitioner denies acting on behalf of any other person and contends that the dispute raises constitutional issues concerning internal union democracy and fair administrative action. He therefore urges the Court to find that the Respondents’ administrative failures compromised the integrity of the election process and that the Petition is properly before the Court. Page 10 of 17

page 10 of 17

Petitioner’s Submissions 12. The Petitioner submits that this Court has jurisdiction because the Petition raises constitutional issues concerning trade union democracy under Article 41, access to information under Article 35, national values under Article 10, and fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution. The Petitioner relies on Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services & Others [2014] eKLR for the proposition that courts must determine disputes where constitutional rights are directly implicated. The Petitioner submits that the Respondents violated Articles 10, 35, 41 and 47 by failing to provide the operative union Constitution, nomination guidelines and a certified voters’ register before the election. The Petitioner contends that those documents were necessary for voter verification, nomination compliance and meaningful participation in the electoral process. The Petitioner relies on Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & another [2015] eKLR for the principle that procedural fairness includes access to relevant information. Page 11 of 17

page 11 of 17

13. The Petitioner further submits that the voters’ register is central to electoral integrity and that the failure to provide a timely and verifiable register undermined the legitimacy of the election. The Petitioner relies on Stephen Ouma Juma & 2 others v Registrar of Trade Unions & another [2017] eKLR, Kenya County Government Workers Union v Registrar of Trade Unions [2026] KEELRC 669 (KLR), and Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission v Maina Kiai & 5 others [2017] eKLR for the principles that elections must be transparent, verifiable and accountable. 14. The Petitioner further submits that the Respondents created procedural uncertainty by issuing election notices before providing the applicable Constitution, guidelines and voters’ register, thereby preventing meaningful compliance with nomination requirements. The Petitioner contends that the inability to pay nomination fees resulted from that uncertainty. Respondents’ Finally, the failures Petitioner submits prejudiced the that the Petitioner’s participation in the Migori Branch elections and therefore prays for declarations that Articles 10, 35, 41 and 47 were Page 12 of 17

page 12 of 17

violated, invalidation of the electoral process, provision of the requisite electoral documents, damages and costs. 1st & 2nd Respondents’ Submissions 15. The 1st and 2nd Respondents submit that the Petition does not disclose any constitutional violation because the Petitioner has failed to plead with precision the specific rights violated and the manner of violation. They rely on Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] KEHC 30 (KLR) and Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2013] KECA 445 (KLR) for the principle that constitutional petitions must be pleaded with reasonable precision. 16. The 1st and 2nd Respondents submit that Article 41 does not guarantee a right to be elected to union office and that the Petitioner was neither denied membership nor excluded from union activities. They further contend that the Petitioner admitted that he did not pay nomination fees, did not submit nomination papers, and did not vote in the election. They rely on Judicial Service Commission v Page 13 of 17

page 13 of 17

Mbalu Mutava & another [2015] eKLR for the proposition that Article 47 is engaged only where a specific administrative action adversely affects an identifiable right. The 1st and 2nd Respondents submit that the Union complied with all pre-election requirements by making the voters’ register available at the Labour Office and providing the amended 2024 KUPPET Constitution after the Court confirmed its validity on 18th December 2025. They contend that there was no legal vacuum because the Registrar of Trade Unions had directed that any constitution under challenge would not be used until the court proceedings were concluded. They assert that courts should be slow to interfere with internal trade union electoral processes absent a clear violation of the Constitution, statute, or the union constitution. The 1st and 2nd Respondents further submit that the Petition has been overtaken by events and is therefore moot. They contend that the elections were conducted, results declared, and the elected officials registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions. They rely on Kenya Railways Corporation & 2 others v Okoiti & 3 others [2023] KESC 38 (KLR) for the doctrine of mootness, arguing that Page 14 of 17

page 14 of 17

the Court should not determine academic or hypothetical questions. The 1st and 2nd Respondents also submit that the Petitioner seeks reliefs, including nullification of the Migori Branch elections, which were not pleaded in the Petition. They rely on Raila Amolo Odinga & another v IEBC & 2 others [2017] eKLR for the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings. 17. Finally, the 1st and 2nd Respondents submit that the Petition should be dismissed with costs because the Union complied with the applicable legal requirements, the members freely elected their leaders, and the Petition has failed both in law and on the facts. Disposition 18. The Petitioner asserts breach of his constitutional rights in as far as the elections of the 2nd Respondent go. The Petitioner asserts he was denied the chance to participate in the elections. He however failed to present his nomination papers or vie for any elective post. Having failed to present himself as a candidate, can be assert breach of his constitutional rights regarding denial to participate in the Page 15 of 17

page 15 of 17

election? I find there was no breach by the Respondents in as far as his candidature goes. 19. The issue of what union constitution was to apply in the conduct of the elections was settled by the Employment Court differently constituted. It is my finding that union members can seek the interposition of the Court only where internal organs have failed. No failure has been demonstrated as the claims by the Petitioner have no backing in evidence. In the case of the 2 nd Respondent, it is stated the constitution in use is on the website and there was no proof that this was not the case. In any event, having been subject of very public litigation, it is improbable that any union member desirous of ascertaining the status of the constitution would fail to get this information. In my considered view, the Petition herein was misplaced and must of necessity fail. Petition is dismissed albeit with no order as to costs. It is so ordered. Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 23rd day of September 2026 Page 16 of 17

page 16 of 17

Nzioki wa Makau, MCIArb. JUDGE Page 17 of 17

page 17 of 17