SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Ngongo v Registrar of Trade Unions & 3 others (Cause E018 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 2113 (KLR) (20 September 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KEELRC 2113 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
2113
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 2113 (KLR)
Decided
20 September 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
Typeelections disputePostureappeal from original trialCoramRADIDO
Holding

The Court found that there were irregularities in the elections, including ballot stumping, and that the claimant was not granted prayers as per the Statement of Claim.

Facts

The claimant and Patrick Omotto Mulamba contested for the position of Branch Executive Secretary in the KNUT Busia branch elections held on 13 February 2021. The claimant was not satisfied with the conduct of the elections and sued the respondents alleging irregularities, ballot stumping, and non-compliance with the union's constitution and the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.

Issues

  1. whether the elections held on 13 February 2021 for the position of Executive Branch Secretary for KNUT Busia branch was marred by ballot stumping?
  2. whether the process leading to the said elections allowed for discrimination against the claimant as opposed to the incumbent?
  3. whether the claimant should be granted prayers as per the Statement of Claim?
  4. which party bears costs of the Claim?

Reasoning

The Court found that the claimant's allegations of ballot stumping were supported by evidence, and that the process did not allow for fair competition.

Outcome

The Court dismissed the claimant's prayers as per the Statement of Claim.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Labour Relations Act
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case