Communication Workers Union of Kenya v Speedaf Logistics Kenya (Cause E698 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 79 (KLR) (23 January 2026) (Judgment)
Neutral citation:
[2026] KEELRC 79 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Cause E698 of 2025
SC Rutto, J
January 23, 2026
Between
Communication Workers Union of Kenya
Claimant
and
Speedaf Logistics Kenya
Respondent
Judgment
1.The Claimant asserts that between November 2024 and February 2025, it recruited 174 unionisable employees from the Respondent’s workforce and submitted duly executed check-off forms. The Claimant further avers that it thereafter forwarded a draft recognition agreement to the Respondent for purposes of commencing collective bargaining, but the Respondent declined to execute the same.
2.The Claimant further states that it reported a trade dispute to the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, following which the parties engaged in conciliation, during which process the Respondent allegedly threatened to lay off several employees on account of its business model.
3.The Claimant avers that the conciliator subsequently issued a certificate of conciliation confirming that the statutory threshold had been met and recommending the execution of a recognition agreement.
4.It is the Claimant’s further assertion that upon serving the Respondent with the conciliation report, it was in turn served with an unsigned notice of intended redundancy affecting 16 employees, including members of the Claimant.
5.The Claimant contends that, notwithstanding the intended redundancies, the Respondent has employed 20 new employees and is seeking to justify the redundancy while simultaneously converting existing regular employment into fixed-term contracts.
6.The Claimant contends that the Respondent’s actions are intended to defeat the recognition dispute by altering employment terms, harassing employees, and introducing redundancy through the back door.
7.It is against this background that the Claimant seeks the following reliefs:i.Declaration be made that the claimant is the correct union for the Respondent's employee and that the claimant has recruited more than simple majority of the unionisable employees of the Respondent.ii.An Order to issue that the Respondent Signs Recognition Agreement and commence Collective Bargaining negotiations within fourteen (14) days of the judgement.iii.An Order be made that the Respondent deducts and remit trade union dues from al the signed-up members whose form 'S' have been served upon it on or before 5th day of every month.iv.That a declaration be made that the impugned fixed-term contracts as issued to the employees are unlawful, non-procedural and unfair therefore only fit for nullification and voiding for want of consultation, consent and favorable terms.v.Declaration be made that the effect of the said fixed term contract be reversed to reflect the obtaining conditions preceding 1st July, 2025 and in any case the Hon Court is inclined to approve of it then terms and conditions therein like gratuity, service pay, renewal among other clauses be negotiated and agreed between parties before execution.vi.The Respondent to desist from further intimidation and or harassment and or victimization of union members and termination in any way and or changing terms and conditions of employment of the union members and other unionisable employees without prior consultation and consent with the claimant.vii.The Honourable court be pleased to grant costs of this claim and any other relief in favour of the Claimant.
8.In opposing the Claim, the Respondent contends that the Claimant was well informed during the union recruitment process, that the Respondent was undergoing a redundancy exercise arising from operational changes, including the transition to a franchise model and the restructuring of its business to enhance efficiency, reduce loss of its customers’ parcels, theft of its resources, and sustainability.
9.The Respondent further contends that the employees’ contracts lapsed by effluxion of time as at 30th July 2025, and that fresh contracts were subsequently issued commencing on 31st May 2025 and running until 31st December 2025.
10.The Respondent, while putting the Claimant to strict proof, avers that any members of the Claimant union who left or are leaving the union have done so voluntarily and without any coercion whatsoever.
11.In view of the foregoing, the Respondent has asked the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.
12.The matter proceeded for hearing on 7th October 2025, during which both parties adduced oral evidence in support of their respective cases.
Claimant’s Case
13.The Claimant called oral evidence through Isaac Sasuri, who testified as CW1. Mr. Sasuri, who identified himself as the Claimant’s Chief Industrial Relations Officer, started by adopting his witness statement together with all the documents filed on behalf of the Claimant to constitute his evidence in chief.
14.Mr. Sasuri testified that on 15th January 2025, the Claimant held an introductory meeting with the Respondent during which it raised the issue of the Recognition Agreement and the deduction of union dues from the 174 employees recruited at the time. He stated that the Respondent only effected deductions for 97 employees in March 2025, leaving out 77 employees without any explanation.
15.He further testified that on 10th March 2025, the Claimant reminded the Respondent to execute the Recognition Agreement, but the Respondent declined through an email dated 10th March 2025, in which it acknowledged that the total number of unionisable employees was 197, while registered union members stood at 133, representing 67.5%. Mr. Sasuri averred that even if 43 employees were subsequently terminated, the remaining figures would reflect 154 unionisable employees against 90 union members, translating to 58.4%.
16.Mr. Sasuri further averred that the Claimant reported a trade dispute to the Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, and that on 20th May 2025, 28th May 2025, and 11th June 2025, the parties attended conciliation meetings, which did not yield a resolution. He added that the Respondent threatened to lay off additional employees, allegedly on account of its new business model of “enfranchising.”
17.He further testified that on 24th June 2025, the Respondent issued a letter updating the Claimant on its company structure, redundancy process, and franchise development, in which it stated that its total workforce stood at 109 employees, but failed to ascertain the unionisable demarcation.
18.Mr. Sasuri further averred that the said letter was unsigned and confirmed that approximately 20 employees were newly engaged during the same period in which others were terminated on account of redundancy.
19.He further testified that the letter dated 24th June 2025 contained names of employees allegedly employed on advanced dates, including Cicilia Wangari Kirigi and Jackline Bahati Munguti, stated to have been employed on 4th July 2025 and 4th September 2025 respectively, dates that had not yet reached at the time.
20.Mr. Sasuri further contended that the list of total unionisable staff provided by the Respondent included the Human Resource Manager herself, Ms. Yvonne Murigi.
21.Mr. Sasuri further averred that on 22nd July 2025, after this Court in ELRCC No. E624 of 2025 directed the Respondent to halt its redundancy plans and processes, the Respondent immediately resorted to issuing new employment letters to employees, including members of the Claimant, thereby converting them from regular (permanent) employment to fixed-term contracts.
22.He added that the contracts were pre-dated 11th June 2025 but had been signed by the Respondent on 31st May 2025, approximately two months before they were served upon the employees.
23.Mr. Sasuri further averred that the impugned contracts offered inferior terms compared to the existing terms of employment and were neither agreed to by the employees nor by the Claimant. It was his testimony that this was intended to frustrate the employees’ right to representation and to undermine collective bargaining.
24.He further testified that the Claimant subsequently served the Respondent with an additional 10 names of union members, whereupon the Respondent allegedly frustrated 4 of them who were earmarked for termination on 8th August 2025.
25.Mr. Sasuri testified that as a result of pressure and intimidation, some members were coerced and/or coached to withdraw from the union by writing letters in similar language and format, which he described as unusual. He further testified that those who withdrew were removed from the redundancy list, while those who declined to do so were marked for termination.
Respondent’s Case
26.The Respondent adduced oral evidence through Yvonne Murigi, who testified as RW1. Ms. Murigi identified herself as the Respondent’s Human Resource Manager and similarly, she adopted her witness statement together with the documents filed on behalf of the Respondent to constitute her evidence in chief.
27.Ms. Murigi averred that the Respondent engaged in meaningful consultations with the Claimant throughout the redundancy process, culminating in the Claimant drafting an agreement on the terms of redundancy for unionisable employees. She stated that the agreement complied with statutory requirements, set out the redundancy dues payable, and was to remain in force for 6 months from its effective date of 3rd February 2025, lapsing on 3rd August 2025.
28.She further averred that as at 18th July 2025, the Respondent’s total workforce stood at 114 employees, comprising 80 non-unionised employees, while the Claimant had recruited 34 unionised employees, representing 29.82% of the workforce, which fell short of the statutory threshold of 50% plus one required for recognition.
29.Ms. Murigi was categorical that the Claimant has not met the threshold prescribed under section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act and is therefore not entitled to recognition.
30.She further stated that the redundancy, which the Claimant characterised as a “threat,” was lawful and legitimate, as redundancy is a recognised ground for termination of employment under the law.
31.Ms. Murigi further averred that the Respondent fully understood and acted upon the genuine commercial considerations informing its business decisions. She stated that, as a matter of commercial judgment, the Respondent determined the restructuring strategy, including which positions to abolish, the manner of implementation, and whether affected employees would be offered alternative positions. She therefore challenged the Claimant’s assertion that it possessed superior insight into the Respondent’s business needs.
32.She further averred that the Claimant frustrated the redundancy agreement dated 3rd February 2025 by instituting the present Claim with the intention of defeating its implementation. In her view, the Claim was a guise aimed at stifling the Respondent’s business plans and operations.
33.Ms. Murigi further stated that the Claimant failed to appreciate that, as at 30th July 2025, the employees’ contracts had expired by effluxion of time. That the expired contracts commenced on 1st June 2024 and automatically lapsed on 31st May 2025, while the new contracts commenced on 31st May 2025 and were set to expire on 31st December 2025.
34.It was her position that any relief sought on the basis that the new contracts “offered inferior terms compared to the existing terms” was not available, as the Claimant’s members were engaged under fixed-term contracts that had lawfully expired.
35.Ms. Murigi further averred that any members of the Claimant union who left or were leaving the union did so voluntarily and without any coercion, and that any allegations to the contrary must be strictly proved before the Court.
36.She further highlighted what she termed as the Claimant’s improper recruitment practices, including interference with management staff, unlawful solicitation of payments outside regulated channels, encouragement of employees to bypass internal human resource procedures, and potential breaches of employee privacy.
Submissions
37.The Claimant submitted that it has demonstrated on the highest balance of probability, in fact and in law, that it has achieved the requisite numbers to merit recognition agreement by the Respondent. In the Claimant’s view, it commanded a simple majority both at the point of seeking Recognition in February, 2025 and also at the latter point in July, 2025.
38.The Claimant further submitted that at no given point in time during hearing did the Respondent claim that the names as served upon them as union members were either incorrect and or duplicated and or fraudulently achieved.
39.The Claimant submitted that the arbitrary changes to the terms of engagement of employees was a means to harass and intimidate union members with a view to discouraging them from trade unionism.
40.In the same vein, the Claimant submitted that the changes to the employee's contract was in contravention of Section 10(5) of the Employment Act and a violation of Section 5(3), which outlaws victimization of employees based on their trade union membership.
41.On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that the Claimant has not achieved the simple majority requirement to warrant recognition pursuant to Section 54 of the Labour Relations Act that would result in requiring recognition.
42.In support of the Respondent’s submissions, the Court was invited to consider a number of authorities including Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v House Mart Limited [2021] KEELRC 666 (KLR), Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals & Allied Workers (Kudheiha) v British Army Training Unit Kenya [2015]KEELRC 839(KLR) and Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Auto Springs Engineering Workers E.A Limited [2025] KEELRC 1011 (KLR).
43.Referencing the decision in Pauline Wangeci Warui v Safaricom Limited [2020] KEELRC 1497 (KLR), the Respondent posited that the principle of freedom of contract states that people have the right to legally bind themselves.
44.Still on this issue, the Respondent further submitted that a fixed-term contract of employment is a lawful mode of employment with a start and end date. On this score, the Respondent placed reliance on the case of Transparency International - Kenya v Omondi [2023] KECA 174 (KLR).
45.The Respondent further submitted that the fresh contracts of 31st May 2025 have not prejudiced its employees as falsely alleged since the previous contracts of 1st June 2024 were to expire at a defined period of time (effluxion of time). To this end, the Respondent maintained that if any of the contracts expire due to such an event, it cannot be claimed that there is an alteration of the terms and conditions of the agreements.
Analysis and Determination
46.Flowing from the record, the Court has identified the following issues for determination:a.Whether the Claimant Union has attained the statutory threshold for recognition by the Respondent under Section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act; andb.Whether the Respondent acted unlawfully in issuing employees with fixed-term contracts.
Attainment of the threshold for Recognition
47.The gist of the Claimant’s case is that between November 2024 and February 2025, it recruited 174 unionisable employees from the Respondent’s workforce, exceeding the statutory threshold required for recognition for collective bargaining purposes.
48.The Claimant contends that the Respondent, in an email dated 10th March 2025, acknowledged that the total number of unionisable employees was 197, while registered union members numbered 133, representing 67.5%. The Claimant further asserts that even if 43 employees were subsequently terminated, the remaining workforce would comprise 154 unionisable employees, of whom 90 were union members.
49.Countering the Claimant’s assertions, the Respondent has stated that as at 18th July 2025, its total workforce comprised 114 employees, of whom 34 were unionised members, representing 29.82%, which falls below the 50% plus one threshold required for recognition.
50.In support of its case, the Claimant produced a list of 174 employees whom it contends were recruited from the Respondent’s workforce. Conversely, the Respondent produced a list showing 34 unionised employees and 80 non-unionised employees as of 18th July 2025.
51.The Claimant disputed the Respondent’s list of employees purportedly not unionised, asserting that 31 of those employees were in fact union members, while some others were non-unionisable, including RW1.
52.A review of the record shows that the 31 employees disputed by the Claimant as being incorrectly listed as non-unionised do, in fact, appear in the Respondent’s submitted list.
53.It is, however, notable that of the contested 31 employees, the Claimant only exhibited 17 duly signed check-off forms. It should be appreciated that the recognized mode of confirming membership in a trade union is through duly signed check-off forms, by which employees also authorize the deduction of trade union dues from their salaries for remittance to the Union.
54.Therefore, the only employees whose membership is confirmed from the contested list of 31 members are 17.
55.The Respondent did not provide any explanation as to why it classified the 17 employees as non-unionised, notwithstanding that they had signed check-off forms confirming their membership in the Union.
56.In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to doubt that 17 of the 31 employees listed by the Respondent as non-unionised were, in fact, unionised.
57.The Respondent further averred that the Claimant was made aware during the recruitment exercise that the Company was undergoing a redundancy process due to operational changes, including the transition of employees to a franchise model.
58.According to the Respondent, it held meaningful consultations with the Claimant and, as a result, drafted an agreement outlining the terms of redundancy for unionisable employees. The agreement was stated to be effective for 6 months, from 3rd February 2025 to 3rd August 2025.
59.To support its position, the Respondent exhibited a copy of the said agreement and a letter dated 9th July 2025 from RW1, which notified the Claimant of the intended redundancy of 16 employees from the operations department. The letter cited the transition to a franchise model and the restructuring of business operations to enhance efficiency and sustainability as the reasons for the redundancy.
60.Notably, 14 of the employees listed for redundancy also appear in the Claimant’s list of employees identified as unionised.
61.It is therefore evident that some employees who had been recruited into the Claimant Union’s membership were declared redundant. In addition to this, two members subsequently resigned from the Union, thereby reducing its overall membership.
62.Section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act provides as follows with respect to the recognition of a trade union by an employer:
63.As can be discerned from Section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act, a trade union attains recognition by achieving a simple majority of union membership.
64.Accordingly, the computation of a simple majority at any given time is an arithmetical calculation based on the total number of unionisable employees in the employer’s workforce compared to the number of employees recruited by the Union.
65.Given the Court’s finding that 17 employees listed by the Respondent as non-unionised were in fact unionised, and the Respondent’s concession that the Claimant recruited 34 employees from its workforce, it follows that the total number of unionised employees in the Respondent’s workforce was 51 prior to the redundancy exercise.
66.The Court having found that 14 unionised employees were among those declared redundant, it follows that there was a corresponding decrease of 14 employees in both the Claimant’s membership and the Respondent’s total unionisable workforce. As a result, the number of unionised employees fell from 51 to 37, while the total unionisable workforce declined from 114 to 100. Taking into account the two members who subsequently resigned from the Union, the membership further declined to 35.
67.Applying the provisions of Section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act to the present case, it is evident that the proportion of unionised employees within the Respondent’s unionisable workforce stood at 35%.
68.It therefore follows that, at the material time, the Claimant Union had not achieved the statutory threshold of a simple majority, entitling it to recognition by the Respondent.
Whether the Respondent acted unlawfully in issuing employees with fixed-term contracts.
69.The Claimant contends that, following the Court’s order in ELRC E624/2025 halting the redundancy process, the Respondent issued new employment letters to employees, including its members, converting them from regular (permanent) contracts to fixed-term contracts. According to the Claimant, these contracts were pre-dated 11th June 2025 but had been signed by the Respondent on 31st May 2025. It is noteworthy that the Claimant did not adduce any evidence to substantiate its claim that the employees in question were employed on permanent contracts.
70.The Respondent, in rebuttal, contends that as of 30th July 2025, the contracts of the employees in question had lawfully expired by effluxion of time.
71.In support of its position, the Respondent produced copies of the employees’ contracts, showing a commencement date of 1st June 2024 and an expiry date of 31st May 2025.
72.Additional contracts were also exhibited, indicating a commencement date of 31st May 2025 and an expiry date of 31st December 2025.
73.What can be drawn from the foregoing is that the employees in question were engaged on fixed-term contracts from 1st June 2024 to 31st May 2025, and upon the expiry of those contracts, they were renewed for another fixed term ending on 31st December 2025.
74.The Employment Act, 2007, recognizes several forms of employment, including piece work, casual employment, fixed-term contracts, and permanent employment with pension benefits. Under the Act, the parties to an employment contract, being the employer and the employee, are free to agree on the terms of employment, including the form of employment, provided that the statutory minimum requirements are met.
75.In the present case, the Respondent engaged the employees in question on fixed-term contracts, which constitute a lawful and recognized form of employment under the Employment Act.
76.Accordingly, it was not improper or unlawful for the Respondent to engage its employees on fixed-term contracts.
77.It is also noteworthy that the Claimant did not adduce any evidence to establish that the employees issued with fixed-term contracts on 31st May 2025 had previously been employed on permanent contracts.
78.Consequently, the Claimant’s assertion that the employees’ contracts were changed from permanent to fixed-term contracts is unsupported by the evidence on record.
79.Overall, the Court is unable to fault the Respondent for issuing its employees with renewed fixed-term contracts from 31st May 2025 to 31st December 2025.
Orders
80.In the final analysis, the Claim is dismissed with an order that each party shall bear its own costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2026.………………………………STELLA RUTTOJUDGEIn the presence of:For the Claimant Mr. Olala (Union Rep)For the Respondent Ms. AjumboCourt Assistant CatherineORDERIn view of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court had been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes.STELLA RUTTOJUDGE