Court strikes out petition challenging Atwoli's sixth term as COTU-K secretary-general

Court ruling

The Employment and Labour Relations Court has struck out a petition challenging the election of Francis Atwoli as Secretary-General of the Central Organisation of Trade Unions (COTU-K), ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

Justice Jemimah Keli held that the petitioners, Fazul Mahamed and the Institute for Democratic Governance, had approached the court as public-interest litigants and had no employment or labour relationship with COTU-K or its officials.

In her August 20 ruling, Justice Keli said that disputes arising from trade union elections must be pursued through specific mechanisms provided under the law, rather than through a constitutional petition.

"The petitioners' cause of action was a trade union election dispute disguised as a constitutional petition," Justice Keli said.

She added that while the Constitution permits public-interest litigation, disputes concerning trade union elections must be brought by persons with a direct connection to employment and labour relations.

"The current dispute concerns the registration and election of trade union officials," the judge stated.

Justice Keli ordered each party to bear its own costs and marked the file closed.

Background of the petition

The petition sought to nullify the March 14 election held at Tom Mboya Labour College in Kisumu, where Mr Atwoli was re-elected unopposed for a sixth term as COTU-K Secretary-General.

The case was filed by Fazul Mahamed and the Institute for Democratic Governance two days after Mr Atwoli's re-election.

The petitioners argued that COTU-K held its national elections before some of its affiliate unions had completed their own branch and national elections, contrary to a timetable issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions in September 2025.

Under the timetable, branch elections were to be held between January 5 and March 31, followed by national elections between April 1 and June 30. COTU-K's election was scheduled for later in the year, by August 30.

The challengers therefore argued that COTU-K had jumped the gun by holding its election on March 14. They also raised concerns over membership lists, nominations, election committees, observers and voting arrangements.

Respondents' arguments and court findings

COTU-K and the other respondents disputed the claim that the election was premature, arguing that the Registrar's circular was an administrative timetable and did not have the force of law.

They maintained that the elections were governed by the Labour Relations Act, the constitutions of individual unions and special election dispute rules published in the Kenya Gazette in December 2025.

Justice Keli agreed that the Registrar's circular did not have the force of law and could not form the basis of a constitutional challenge because it lacked statutory authority.

Neither Mr Mahamed nor the Institute for Democratic Governance was a member, candidate or official of COTU-K or any of the affiliate unions whose elections they challenged.

The court found that such complaints had to be pursued through the specific dispute-resolution mechanisms established for trade union elections.