Republic v Secretary General, KUPPET & 6 others; Nakuru KUPPET Branch Executive Committee (Interested Party); Vivian Chepkemoi Towett (Ex-parte Applicant)

C/A Otieno JUDGMENT 1. The ex parte applicant was a teacher employed by the 7th respondent and a member of the 5th respondent's union. She unsuccessfully contested the position of secretary, gender, Nakuru KUPPET branch, and blamed the respondents for placing some members on agency and denying them the opportunity to vote. She also alleged other malpractice at the elections. She also wished to contest as a candidate in the union's national elections. The ex parte applicant filed a Notice of Motion application dated 22nd March 2026 for judicial review orders as follows1) An Order of Certiorari be and is hereby issued to remove into this Honourable Court for purposes of being quashed, and to quash, the entire decision-making process, conduct, supervision, validation and declaration of the Nakuru KUPPET Branch elections held on 7th February 2026 by the 3rd Respondent. 2) An Order of Certiorari be and is hereby issued to quash the election results of the Nakuru KUPPET Branch elections held on 7th February 2026. 3) An Order of Certiorari be and is hereby issued to quash the decision, action and/or administrative act of the 4th Respondent registering, gazetting and/or effecting changes to the Nakuru KUPPET Branch register of officials arising from the impugned elections. 4) An Order of Certiorari be and is hereby issued to quash all consequential administrative acts, decisions, registrations, recognitions and/or actions flowing from or predicated upon the impugned elections. J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 2 | 23

page 2 of 23

5) An Order of Prohibition be and is hereby issued prohibiting the Respondents jointly and severally, and/or any person acting under their authority, from implementing, enforcing, recognizing, relying upon or in any manner acting upon the results of the Nakuru KUPPET Branch elections held on 7th February 2026. 6) An Order of Prohibition be and is hereby issued restraining the 1st, 4th and 5th Respondents from utilizing, relying upon or acting on the impugned register of officials for any administrative, governance or electoral purposes. 7) An Order of Prohibition be and is hereby issued prohibiting the conduct, facilitation or continuation of KUPPET National Elections premised on, influenced by, or derived from the impugned Nakuru Branch elections pending the conduct of lawful, valid and procedurally compliant branch elections. 8) An Order of Mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the 3rd Respondent, in accordance with their statutory mandate, to conduct, supervise and/or ensure the conduct of fresh Nakuru KUPPET Branch elections in strict compliance with: - The Constitution of Kenya - The Labour Relations Act - Applicable regulations and guidelines issued by the 4th Respondent 9) An Order of Mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the 4th Respondent to: - Rectify, nullify and/or expunge any entries in the register of officials arising from the impugned elections; and - Ensure compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements in the registration of trade union officials J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 3 | 23

page 3 of 23

10) An Order of Mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the 7th Respondent, within its statutory mandate, to regularize and/or rectify any unlawful conversion of union members to agency fee-paying status undertaken without consent and in contravention of applicable law. 11) THAT the leave granted by this Honourable Court on 9th March 2026 do operate as a stay of: • The implementation and/or enforcement of the election results • The registration and/or recognition of officials • Any reliance on or use of the impugned election outcomes. 12) THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application: • The results of the Nakuru KUPPET elections held on 7th February 2026 be and are hereby suspended • Any changes to the Nakuru KUPPET Branch register of officials be stayed • Any national electoral processes dependent on the impugned results be halted. 13) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to grant such further or other orders as it may deem just, fair and expedient in the circumstances. 14) THAT costs of this Application be provided for. Grounds of Notice of Motion 2. THAT the Ex Parte Applicant was duly granted leave by this Honourable Court on 9th March 2026 to institute Judicial Review proceedings. 3. THAT the impugned elections were conducted in violation of the Constitution, the Labour Relations Act, and binding administrative guidelines issued by the 4th Respondent. J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 4 | 23

page 4 of 23

4. THAT the 2nd Respondent failed, refused and/or neglected to avail the branch membership register for verification as required prior to the elections. 5. THAT the failure to submit and verify the membership register rendered the electoral process opaque, unverifiable, procedurally defective and susceptible to manipulation. 6. THAT the absence of a verified membership register fundamentally undermined the legality, integrity and credibility of the electoral process. 7. THAT members of the 5th Respondent were unlawfully and irregularly converted to agency fee-paying status without their knowledge or consent, thereby disenfranchising them. 8. THAT the participation of ineligible persons and exclusion of eligible members materially affected the outcome and integrity of the elections. 9. THAT the 3rd Respondent failed to independently, impartially and lawfully conduct and supervise the elections and instead abdicated and/or ceded that mandate. 10. THAT the 6th Respondent unlawfully interfered with and influenced the electoral process, thereby compromising its independence, neutrality and credibility. 11. THAT the elections were marred by grave irregularities including: • Participation of ineligible voters. • Failure of voter verification mechanisms. • Discrepancies and inconsistencies in vote tallying. • Allegations of bribery, inducement and undue influence. J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 5 | 23

page 5 of 23

12. THAT the impugned electoral process was illegal, irrational, procedurally improper, unreasonable and in violation of Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act. 13. THAT the 4th Respondent acted unlawfully, unreasonably and in excess of jurisdiction in registering officials arising from a fundamentally flawed electoral process. 14. THAT unless restrained, the impugned results will be used to influence and determine the outcome of KUPPET National Elections, thereby perpetuating illegality and disenfranchisement. 15. THAT the Ex Parte Applicant has no alternative, adequate or efficacious remedy other than seeking the intervention of this Honourable Court. 16. THAT it is in the interest of justice, constitutionalism and the rule of law that the orders sought herein be granted. 17. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application, the Ex Parte Applicant seeks interim intervention of this Honourable Court to forestall the conduct of the KUPPET National elections pending regularization of the Nakuru Branch electoral process. 18. THAT the Ex Parte Applicant prays for orders THAT: a) An Order be issued staying and/or halting the conduct of the KUPPET National elections until the lawful registration of duly elected officials of the Nakuru KUPPET Branch is completed. b) An Order be issued directing the 5th Respondent to conduct the National elections strictly in accordance with the timelines prescribed by the Registrar J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 6 | 23

page 6 of 23

of Trade Unions, including holding the said elections at least sixty (60) days after the proper registration of Nakuru Branch officials. c) Costs of this Application be in the cause. 19. The Notice of Motion was supported by the Ex-Parte Applicant’s Supporting Affidavit, sworn on 12th February 2026, with the documents attached thereto; a Statutory Statement dated 12th February 2026; and a Supplementary Supporting Affidavit, sworn on 22nd March 2026. 20. In response to the Motion, the Respondents filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by AKELO M.T. MISORI on 24th March 2026. 21. To counter the response, the Ex-Parte Applicant filed a Supplementary Response dated 2nd June 2026. The Ex -Parte Applicant’s case in summary 22. The Ex-Parte Applicants’ case is that the 4th Respondent, the Registrar of Trade Unions, directed Trade Unions to forward branch registers of members to labour officers within 60 days before branch elections to facilitate membership verification. However, contrary to these guidelines, the 2nd Respondent, the Executive Secretary of the Nakuru KUPPET branch, as the authority responsible for maintaining the branch membership register pursuant to Article 11.13.0(a)(e) of the KUPPET Constitution, refused to provide the Nakuru KUPPET branch register to the labour officer 60 days before the Nakuru KUPPET branch elections. J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 7 | 23

page 7 of 23

23. It is averred that some KUPPET members were transferred in December 2025 and January 2026 into the KUPPET agency without their knowledge, in order to deny them their constitutional rights under Article 41(2)(c) to join and participate in trade union activities and programmes, including elections held by the 7th Respondent. Further, on the date of the elections, the 6th Respondent, the KUPPET National Chairman, presided over the elections, usurping the role of the Labour Officer, and verbally influenced members to elect members “with roots from the mountain.” Queries regarding the conduct of the elections were referred by the Labour Officer to the same National Chairman, Hon. Jeremiah Omboko Milemba, and to Mr Moses Nthurima, who selectively decided whom to listen to. In particular, the Applicant states that the 6th Respondent was very partisan and refused to listen to any query from the complainant, instead paying heed to the 2nd Respondent. 24. The Applicant complains that during and after the elections, there were various irregularities, including: an unexplained variation in the total vote tally across positions, despite all voters being given a ballot paper to vote; KUPPET agency paying teachers were irregularly allowed to vote pursuant to an illegal circular of the 1st Respondent dated 3rd January 2026, which was contrary to the agency gazette notice of the Minister of Labour, despite them not being members; the 3rd Respondent allowed the use of a physical payslip, which could be easily manipulated in cyber shops, despite the 7th Respondent providing all teachers with online payslips, which are foolproof; J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 8 | 23

page 8 of 23

and the 2nd and 5th Respondents, through its National Treasurer, engaged in bribery of members whom the 2nd Respondent had ferried in buses, which was confirmed by members who swore affidavits. Some illustrations of members who were not granted an opportunity to vote, as presented by the Petitioner, are: Kirui Denis TSC 787158, Godwin Kipngeno Sang, and Judith Cherotich TSC 845912. They all wrote letters of complaint to the 1st and 7th Respondents, which were ignored. Similarly, from payslips for KUPPET members for December 2025, Rotich Purity Chepkirui TSC 859865 was being deducted KUPPET union dues in October 2025 and November 2025, but she was mysteriously changed to KUPPET agency in December 2025 without consent. Cherotich Judith TSC 845912 also paid KUPPET union dues in November 2025 but was switched to KUPPET agency in December 2025, just to deny her voting rights. An agency paying teacher confirmed having voted, and the letter dated 3rd January 2026 of the 1st Respondent confirmed that some agency paying teachers were allowed to vote. 25. The Applicant invokes the doctrine of precedent to urge the Court to suspend the Nakuru KUPPET branch election results, on the basis that the Courts (Justice Monica Mburu and Justice Jemima Keli) stayed the Mombasa and Kiambu KUPPET election results, respectively, for non-compliance with the guidelines of the Registrar of Trade Unions and procedural issues, which are similar to those in the case of Nakuru. 26. The Applicant contends that under Article 8.8.1(c) of the KUPPET Constitution, branch elections are conducted in the Branch General Assembly (BGA). The J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 9 | 23

page 9 of 23

2nd Respondent ought to have provided all members with transport and lunch reimbursements, rather than transporting some members and not others. She states that the 4th Respondent has registered new officials of the Nakuru KUPPET branch based on the impugned Nakuru KUPPET branch elections held on 7th February 2026. 27. She argues that although Section 30 of the Labour Relations Act requires challenging an act of the 4th Respondent through an appeal, that requirement contravenes Article 2(4) of the National Constitution by referring to a non-existent industrial court and is therefore unconstitutional, null and void. The Applicant indicates that she is interested in contesting the position of the National Secretary Gender of the 5th Respondent, and that if the Nakuru KUPPET Branch elections are not repeated, she will be denied her constitutional right under Article 41(2)(c) of the National Constitution to participate in all activities and programmes of a trade union, including contesting National elections, as Articles 13.0(a)(ii) and 8.2(b) of the Constitution provide that only delegates shall contest National elections. 28. It is averred that the Nakuru Kuppet branch elections failed to meet the standards set out in Article 81 of the National Constitution, as they lacked transparency, were marred by improper influence and corruption, and involved inaccurate tallying, unfairness, and a lack of verifiability (unaccountability). The Ex-Parte Applicant states that they wrote to and visited the 3rd Respondent with other members to verify membership, but were informed that no membership register had been received from the union. J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 10 | 23

page 10 of 23

Respondents’ case in brief 29. The Respondents challenge the present suit on the ground that it is misconceived, incompetent, bad in law, and an abuse of Court process, as it improperly invites the Court to interrogate contested facts and the merits of an election dispute, contrary to settled principles governing Judicial Review jurisdiction. 30. Further, the Respondents challenge the Petition on the basis that the Ex-Parte Applicant has failed to explore internal dispute resolution mechanisms under the Constitution and Rules of the 5th Respondent and the Labour Relations Act, 2007. They contend that the case offends the doctrine of exhaustion. The Respondents further contend that the Ex-Parte Applicant has not demonstrated any prejudice that cannot be remedied through the ordinary dispute resolution mechanisms available under the law and the Union Constitution. 31. The Respondents emphasize that the elections for Nakuru KUPPET Branch officials held on 7th February 2026 were conducted in accordance with the Constitution of KUPPET, the Labour Relations Act, 2007, and applicable election procedures, with all eligible delegates and members duly participating in the peaceful elections. They state that the elections were held in the presence of candidates, agents, delegates, and labour officers; that no formal objection was raised during the voting and tallying process; and that the results were publicly announced at the polling venue immediately after tallying. Specifically, in relation to the Ex-Parte Applicant, it is averred that she participated as a candidate for the position of Gender Secretary and J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 11 | 23

page 11 of 23

instituted the present proceedings only after losing the election, having obtained 1,032 votes against the successful candidate’s 1,097 votes. 32. The allegations that the elections were opaque, unverifiable or manipulated, and that agency fee-paying members voted illegally are denied. The Respondents contend that the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th Respondents have no statutory or operational mandate over payroll deductions or the conversion of membership status within the Teachers Service Commission payroll system. Any deductions or agency fee issues fall within the exclusive statutory mandate of the 7th Respondent and cannot lawfully be attributed to the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th Respondents. Further, they state that no evidence has been tendered before this Honourable Court proving that any alleged conversion of membership status affected the outcome of the Nakuru Branch elections, and that all persons who voted were duly cleared through the branch electoral process, and that no contemporaneous objection was raised against any voter during the exercise. The Respondents state that the Ex-Parte Applicant has failed to particularise or demonstrate with specificity any irregularity sufficient to invalidate the entire election exercise. 33. Regarding the Respondents’ alleged failure to submit membership registers in accordance with the circular dated 25th September 2025, the Respondents state that the Registrar's circular dated 25th September 2025 merely provided administrative guidelines to facilitate the elections and did not invalidate elections conducted under duly registered Union constitutions. It is stated that, in any event, the membership register and branch records were J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 12 | 23

page 12 of 23

made available and used during the election process to identify eligible delegates and voters. Additionally, the Respondents argue that the Ex-Parte Applicant has not demonstrated that any single eligible member was denied the right to vote at the elections. The Ex-Parte Applicant's reliance on alleged discrepancies in vote tallies is stated to be misleading, since different elective positions naturally attracted varying voting patterns, spoilt ballots and selective voting by delegates. The existence of spoilt votes and differing totals across elective positions does not, in itself, constitute electoral malpractice or illegality. According to the Respondents, the allegations of bribery, inducement and undue influence are generalised accusations lacking particulars, including dates, identities of alleged perpetrators and admissible evidence, and were not formally lodged with the election officials, labour officers or security agencies during the elections. They state that the screenshots and annexures produced by the Applicant do not establish any nexus between the alleged conversations and the conduct of the Respondents herein. 34. It is averred that the Ex-Parte Applicant has failed to demonstrate any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety capable of warranting the Judicial Review remedies sought herein. These remedies are discretionary and cannot issue where there are disputed questions of fact requiring viva voce evidence and cross-examination. The Respondents take the view that granting the orders sought will unjustifiably disenfranchise duly elected officials and thousands of KUPPET members who lawfully participated in the elections, especially since the elected branch officials have already assumed J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 13 | 23

page 13 of 23

office and continue to discharge their lawful mandates on behalf of Nakuru Branch members. DETERMINATION 35. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Ex-Parte Applicant and the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th respondents complied. Issues for determination 36. In his submissions dated 2nd June 2026, the Ex-Parte Applicant identified the following issues for determination: i. Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Application. ii. Whether the 7th Respondent contravened provisions of the Labour Relations Act sections 48(6), 48(7) and 48(8). iii. Whether the 1st Respondent contravened Kuppet constitution article 13.0(a)(vi). iv. Whether the 1st Respondent complied with the Labour Relations Act section 34(5). v. Whether non-compliance with the Labour Relations Act and Kuppet constitution rendered the elections invalid. vi. Whether by the allowing ineligible teachers to vote rendered the elections invalid. vii. Whether there was a systematic arrangement for bribery to influence the elections. viii. Whether it was proper for a member of Parliament and UDA Deputy Secretary General to supervise elections. J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 14 | 23

page 14 of 23

37. Conversely, in their submissions dated 1st July 2026, the Respondents(1st ,2nd ,5th and 6th identified the following issues for determination:i. Whether the Applicant properly invoked the Judicial Review jurisdiction of this Honourable Court in light of the specialized statutory framework governing trade union election disputes. ii. Whether the present proceedings constitute an abuse of the Court process by reason of parallel litigation, multiplicity of proceedings and fragmentation of disputes already under judicial management. iii. Whether the Judicial Review Motion should be dismissed with costs. The law 38. Section 34 of the Labour Relations Act provides for Election of officials as follows‘(1)The election of officials of a trade union, employers’ organisation or federation shall be conducted in accordance with their registered constitutions. (2)The constitution of a trade union, employers’ organisation or federation shall — (a)not contain a provision that discriminates unfairly between incumbents and other candidates in elections; and (b)provide for the election, by secret ballot, of all officials of a trade union at least once every five years. J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 15 | 23

page 15 of 23

(3)Notice of the election of officials under this section shall be given to the Registrar in the prescribed form within fourteen days of the completion of the election. (4)Disputes arising from, or connected directly or indirectly to, elections held under this section may be referred to the Industrial Court. (5)The Registrar may issue directions to a trade union, employers’ organisation or federation to ensure that elections are conducted in accordance with this section and their respective constitutions.’ 39. The procedure for challenging union elections is stated in Employment and Labour Relations Court (Trade Union Election Disputes) Procedure and Practice Directions, 2025 published by the Chief Justice Hon. Martha Koome on the 1st September 2025. direction 3 states‘3. (1) These procedure and practice directions shall apply to petitions in respect of trade union elections including for both workers trade unions and employers’ associations duly registered under the Labour Relations Act. (2) A petition about a trade union election dispute is essentially for enforcement of the right to fair labour relations as provided in Article 41 and the other relevant provisions of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution and shall be instituted in accordance with the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Enforcement of the Constitution) Practice and Procedure Rules as provided for in rule 10 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024.’ J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 16 | 23

page 16 of 23

Issues for determination 40. That the Exparte Applicant proposes the following as issues for determination; a) Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Application. b) Whether the 7th Respondent contravened provisions of the Labour Relations Act sections 48(6), 48(7) and 48(8). c) Whether the 1st Respondent contravened Kuppet constitution article 13.0(a)(vi). d) Whether the 1st Respondent complied with the Labour Relations Act section 34(5). e) Whether non-compliance with the Labour Relations Act and Kuppet constitution rendered the elections invalid. f) Whether by the allowing ineligible teachers to vote rendered the elections invalid. g) Whether there was a systematic arrangement for bribery to influence the elections h) Whether it was proper for a member of Parliament and UDA Deputy Secretary General to supervise elections 41. The respondent outlined the following issues for determination a. Whether the Applicant properly invoked the Judicial Review jurisdiction of this Honourable Court in light of the specialised statutory framework governing trade union election disputes. b. Whether the present proceedings constitute an abuse of the Court process by reason of parallel litigation, multiplicity of proceedings and fragmentation of disputes already under judicial management. J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 17 | 23

page 17 of 23

c. Whether the Judicial Review Motion should be dismissed with costs. 42. The court finds the issues for determination to bea. Whether the judicial review application is proper to challenge the conduct of the union elections; If in the affirmative consider the following issuesb. Whether the 7th Respondent contravened provisions of the Labour Relations Act sections 48(6), 48(7) and 48(8). c. Whether the 1st Respondent contravened Kuppet constitution article 13.0(a) (vi). d. Whether the 1st Respondent complied with the Labour Relations Act section 34(5). e. Whether non-compliance with the Labour Relations Act and Kuppet constitution rendered the elections invalid. f. Whether by the allowing ineligible teachers to vote rendered the elections invalid. g. Whether there was a systematic arrangement for bribery to influence the elections. h. Whether it was proper for a member of Parliament and UDA Deputy Secretary General to supervise elections. Whether the judicial review application is proper to challenge the conduct of the union elections J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 18 | 23

page 18 of 23

43. The ex parte applicant was granted leave by the court sitting at Nakuru to institute the instant judicial review proceedings to challenge the conduct of the elections of the 5th representative of Nakuru branch held on the 7th February 2026. The ex parte applicant, in compliance with Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, filed the instant notice of motion application seeking judicial review orders of certiorari to quash the election results and orders of prohibition in relation to the results and elected official, and orders of mandamus;, An Order of Mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the 3rd Respondent, in accordance with their statutory mandate, to conduct, supervise and/or ensure the conduct of fresh Nakuru KUPPET Branch elections in strict compliance with The Constitution of Kenya, The Labour Relations Act and Applicable regulations and guidelines issued by the 4th Respondent; An Order of Mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the 4th Respondent to: Rectify, nullify and/or expunge any entries in the register of officials arising from the impugned elections; and Ensure compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements in the registration of trade union officials; and An Order of Mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the 7th Respondent, within its statutory mandate, to regularize and/or rectify any unlawful conversion of union members to agency fee-paying status undertaken without consent and in contravention of applicable law. 44. The court finds that it is true it has already taken a position on the procedure for approaching the court in a cause of action challenging the union elections in judicial review proceedings challenging the Samburu KUPPET branch elections in J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 19 | 23

page 19 of 23

Republic v Registrar of Trade Unions & 7 others; Lengoyiap (Ex parte Applicant) [2026] KEELRC 1448 (KLR) where I held at paragraph 30 – ‘The court further holds that 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, as guided by the 2025 Employment and Labour Relations Court (Trade Union Election Disputes) Procedure and Practice Directions. The application is struck off for being defective. The court grants the ex parte applicant leave to join the pending election petition, Petition No. E013 of 2026, if he so wishes. I make no order as to costs in the application, as the applicant is a member of the KUPPET and his application was not frivolous.’ 45. I am not persuaded to change the above position. 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. Whether the application was merited. 46. I read and appreciated the submissions by the parties. If I had found the JR proceedings proper, it is my finding that the court has also determined on the merits the dispute related to the impugned election of the Nakuru KUPPET branch in Nakuru ELRC, JR No. 2 of 2026. In the case, the election of the Nakuru KUPPET branch was challenged on the grounds of the placement of J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 20 | 23

page 20 of 23

some teachers under agency and on allegations of discrimination. The court (Justice Rika) in Rono v Secretary-General, KUPPET & 6 others (Judicial Review Application E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 1858 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1858 (KLR) held as follows’47. The submission by the Applicant concerning direct trade union membership and agency status, does not seem to the Court to have disadvantaged any Teacher. 48. The Applicant argues somewhat incoherently, that some Teachers, especially from his ethnic community were transferred to agency category by the TSC, to disenfranchise them. 49.Why would the TSC, a constitutional body servicing the entire country, target one ethnic group, in one County, in a Trade Union Branch election, and disenfranchise them? What is to be gained by the TSC? This submission by the Applicant is preposterous and is rejected. 50.The Applicant argues on the other hand, that agency Teachers were allowed to vote, while only bone de members, should have been allowed to vote.’ 51. Further at paragraph 67 Justice Rika (above) made a final decision on the conduct of the impugned elections, thus ‘The Applicant has not, however, persuaded the Court that the results should be quashed, and fresh elections held….’ 52. At paragraph 69, the Court (Rika J above) held – J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 21 | 23

page 21 of 23

‘At present, the Court cannot interfere with the outcome. There are elected officials who have been registered, and annulling the outcome, and directing a fresh exercise, would result in condemning the elected officials unheard.’’ 53. I find the court, through Justice Rika, has a decision on the validity of the Nakuru KUPPET Branch elections. I find that the validity of the election of the Nakuru KUPPET branch has been examined by a judge of equal status and upheld. Even though the court noted that the case was withdrawn on the eve of judgment, Justice Rika nevertheless pronounced on the merits of the elections. There is no live controversy for the court to determine. Disposition 54. I held the instant judicial review application was improper as there is a clear mechanism to challenge the election of unions vide petition under the practice directions. The purpose of the rules is to provide an opportunity to test the evidence for the claim through cross-examination of witnesses. Judicial review proceedings under Section 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules is limited to process and not merit. 55. Secondly, I held that the merit of the conduct of the Nakuru KUPPET branch elections had been decided by Justice Rika in Rono v Secretary-General, KUPPET & 6 others [2026] KEELRC 1858 (KLR) (Judicial Review (30 June 2026) Application (Judgment) E002 of 2026) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1858 (KLR) who upheld the conduct of the elections. J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 22 | 23

page 22 of 23

56. 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) (Judicial Review (30 June 2026) Application (Judgment) E002 of 2026) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1858 (KLR). 57. On costs, the Ex Parte Applicant was a member of the 5th Respondent. In promoting industrial relations and harmony in the union, I order each party to bear its own costs. 58. The Notice of Motion dated 22 nd March 2026 is dismissed. Each party to bear own costs. 59. The file is marked as closed. 60. It is so Ordered DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. JEMIMAH KELI, JUDGE. IN THE PRESENCE OF: Court Assistant: Otieno Exparte Applicant- In person 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th Respondents: Ms. Okello Other Respondents-absent J U D G M E N T I N N A I R O B I J U D I C I A L R E V I E W N O . E 0 1 9 O F 2 0 2 6 P a g e 23 | 23

page 23 of 23