Premium
Why court rejected bid to reinstate St Mary’s Mumias Mission Hospital staff
St Mary's Mission Hospital in Kakamega County.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court has struck out two cases filed by the Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions and Hospital Workers (Kudheiha) against St Mary’s Mission Hospital Mumias, dealing a major blow to workers who had challenged suspensions, redundancies and alleged unfair labour practices at the hospital.
Justice David Nderitu ruled that the cases were incompetent because the hospital had been sued under a name that lacked legal capacity to be sued.
The judge also found that the union had failed to prove that the affected workers were legitimate members of the union, denying it the legal standing required to institute the suits on their behalf.
The dispute pitted Kudheiha against the hospital, with the union accusing it of victimising workers for joining the union and unlawfully declaring them redundant.
According to court documents, the union moved to court in October 2025 seeking urgent intervention to stop what it termed as unfair labour practices, including suspension of workers, non-payment of dues, evictions from staff quarters and intended redundancies.
The union also wanted the court to compel the hospital to recognise it officially and begin deducting and remitting union dues from workers’ salaries.
Kudheiha claimed that since 2021 it had repeatedly attempted to access the hospital premises to recruit workers and educate them on union matters, but the management consistently blocked its officials from meeting employees.
The union said that despite resistance from the employer, it managed to recruit a majority of unionisable workers at the hospital, thereby qualifying for recognition under labour laws.
It told the court that after employees joined the union, the hospital allegedly began intimidating workers and later suspended them following labour unrest and a strike threat.
Court papers showed that the dispute escalated after workers issued a seven-day strike notice on June 20, 2025 following alleged failure by the hospital to honour a memorandum of understanding signed with employee representatives.
The union further argued that shortly after filing the case, the hospital issued a general redundancy notice and also started evicting employees from staff housing.
Justice Nderitu noted that the court had earlier issued interim orders stopping the redundancies and restraining the hospital from evicting workers from staff quarters pending the determination of the dispute.
However, the hospital opposed the suits and raised a preliminary objection, arguing that St Mary’s Mission Hospital Mumias was not a legal entity capable of suing or being sued.
The hospital stated that it merely operated under the Registered Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Kakamega and therefore lacked independent legal personality.
Through a replying affidavit sworn by former hospital administrator Sister Janet Nduku, the hospital maintained that the cases were fundamentally defective from the outset.
The hospital also denied that the union had attained the threshold required for recognition, arguing that there was no proof the affected employees were valid union members.
It further told the court that the redundancy process had already taken effect and that the workers had participated in an unlawful strike that disrupted hospital operations.
According to the hospital, employees abandoned duty, destroyed the clocking system and discharged patients without settling hospital bills, causing financial losses to the institution.
The management argued that due to operational and financial difficulties, it was forced to suspend operations and later declare redundancies in compliance with the Employment Act.
Justice Nderitu agreed with the hospital on the issue of legal capacity.
The judge observed that although certificates of service produced in court identified St Mary’s Mission Hospital Mumias as the employer, the union had failed to demonstrate that the institution had legal personality capable of being sued independently.
“In my considered view, it is upon a litigant to establish the capacity of the adverse party before filing a cause in court,” the judge ruled.
He added that a suit filed against a party without legal capacity was “dead on arrival, null and void”.
The court relied on previous decisions, including a case involving the Football Kenya Federation, where courts held that unincorporated entities lacking legal personality cannot sue or be sued in their own names.
On the issue of the union’s standing, Justice Nderitu ruled that Kudheiha had failed to prove that the workers it sought to represent were active union members.
The court noted that although the union had produced signed check-off forms authorising deduction of union dues, there was no evidence that any dues had actually been paid.
The judge stated that payment of union dues was a key requirement for union membership under the Labour Relations Act.
“The lack of membership disentitles the claimant the locusstandi to bring the claims on behalf of the alleged grievants,” Justice Nderitu ruled.
The court further observed that since the employer had allegedly failed to deduct union dues, workers could still have paid subscriptions directly to the union if they wished to maintain membership.
Justice Nderitu, however, left the door open for the workers or the union to file fresh proceedings against the proper legal entity if they so wished.
The ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications for trade unions and workers seeking to challenge employers in court, particularly on the importance of correctly identifying legal entities and proving union membership before instituting labour disputes.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
