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

Kenya National Union of Road Contractors & Civil Engineering Workers v China Rail Way No 5 Engineering Group Company Limited (Cause E1068 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1742 (KLR) (13 June 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEELRC 1742 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1742
Citation
[2025] KEELRC 1742 (KLR)
Decided
13 June 2025
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeLabor DisputePostureAppeal from a decision of the Employment and Labour Relations CourtCoramSC RUTTO
The Court is not satisfied that the Claimant has proved that it has locus standi to institute the suit on behalf of the remaining 99 persons appearing in paragraph 3 of the Memorandum of Claim.

Facts

The Kenya National Union of Road Contractors & Civil Engineering Workers filed a suit on behalf of 101 persons who were formerly employed by China Rail Way No 5 Engineering Group Company Limited. The claimants alleged that the Respondent failed to adhere to the Labour Institutions Act 2007 and denied their terminal dues.

Issues

  • Whether the Claimant has locus standi to bring the suit on behalf of the 101 persons appearing in the Claim
  • Whether there was an employment relationship between the Respondent and the confirmed grievants (if any)
  • Whether the reliefs sought in the Statement of Claim are sustainable

Reasoning

The Claimant did not provide evidence of its capacity to represent the 101 persons and only two confirmed grievants testified. The Respondent's Non-Dispute Agreement was presented as evidence of the employment relationship.

Outcome

The Court dismissed the suit with costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case