Former Kenya National Union of Teachers (Knut) secretary-general Wilson Sossion's attempt to reclaim his leadership role collapsed after a Kenyan court ruled that his Sh72,000 payment of union dues did not revive his membership or override the organization's constitutional eligibility criteria. The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed Sossion's March 2026 petition, stating that paying dues alone did not grant him the right to contest the Secretary-General position under Section 31(1) and (4)(a) of the Labour Relations Act. Sossion, now a member of the Teachers Service Commission (TSC), had argued that his payment—covering dues from July 2022 to June 2026—made him eligible for the April 2026 elections. However, the court emphasized that Knut’s constitution, which restricts membership to registered teachers, remained binding.
The dispute originated when Sossion, who had been removed from the TSC’s teacher register in 2017 after his parliamentary nomination and later terminated from his teaching role in 2019, wrote to Knut Secretary-General Collins Oyuu on February 18, 2026, expressing interest in the leadership race. He paid Sh72,000 into Knut’s KCB account on November 7, 2025, but the union returned the funds on December 31 without explanation. Sossion made a second payment on February 27, 2026, and submitted a deposit slip, claiming compliance with Section 33 of the Labour Relations Act. Knut countered that its constitution, revised in February 2022, required membership to be tied to registered teachers, whose subscriptions are typically deducted via the check-off system. The union also cited Sossion’s 2019 Gazette notice removing him from the teachers’ register as a key barrier.
The court’s ruling centered on the interplay between the Labour Relations Act and Knut’s constitution. Justice Jacob Gakeri noted that Section 34 of the Act mandates trade union elections be conducted according to their registered constitutions. While Section 31(4)(a) allows non-sector employees to serve as trade union officials, the court ruled this did not automatically grant Sossion eligibility. “He still had to contend with the provisions of the union’s Constitution,” the judge stated. The court also addressed Sossion’s co-plaintiff, Martha Omollo, a Harambee School teacher who challenged her exclusion from the Deputy Secretary-General race. Her petition was dismissed due to lack of evidence proving she was an elected branch delegate, as required by Knut’s rules.
Knut proceeded with its April 3, 2026, elections, re-electing Oyuu unopposed in Kisumu. The court acknowledged that “all other issues having been overtaken by events,” leaving only the interpretation of Sections 31 and 34 for determination. The ruling underscores the legal tension between statutory provisions and internal union governance, with implications for teachers’ rights and union membership criteria. Sossion’s case highlights the complexities of navigating overlapping legal frameworks, as his attempt to leverage the Labour Relations Act faced resistance from Knut’s constitutional requirements. The decision also raises questions about the enforceability of union rules in light of broader labor laws.
The dispute reflects deeper rivalries within Knut, as Sossion’s 2026 bid followed his earlier challenges to Oyuu’s leadership. Previous legal battles, including a 2021 court ruling that upheld Oyuu’s control of the union, set the stage for this latest conflict. Sossion’s legal team had argued that his TSC membership and payment of dues should suffice, but the court emphasized that union constitutions must align with the law. The ruling reaffirms the primacy of internal union governance, even as it acknowledges the need for compliance with national labor statutes. For teachers, the case underscores the importance of adhering to both institutional and legal standards when seeking leadership roles.
The outcome has significant public-interest implications, particularly for educators navigating union membership and eligibility. It clarifies that while labor laws provide certain protections, union constitutions remain critical in defining membership criteria. The case also highlights the challenges faced by former teachers transitioning into other roles, such as parliamentary service, and their ability to retain union privileges. As Knut moves forward, the ruling may influence future disputes over membership and leadership, reinforcing the need for clarity in union governance structures.
The court’s decision does not address the broader issue of Sossion’s 2019 termination from teaching, which the Court of Appeal had deemed procedurally flawed in February 2026. However, the appellate court did not restore his name to the TSC register, leaving his status as a registered teacher unresolved. This ambiguity complicates his eligibility for union roles, as Knut’s constitution explicitly ties membership to active teaching registration. The case also raises questions about the TSC’s role in maintaining accurate teacher records and the legal mechanisms for challenging such decisions.
Sossion’s legal team has not yet commented on the ruling, but his continued advocacy for union reform suggests the dispute may not be fully resolved. The case has drawn attention to the intersection of labor rights, union governance, and public service roles, with potential ramifications for educators seeking to balance professional transitions with union participation. As Knut prepares for future elections, the court’s emphasis on constitutional compliance may shape the criteria for leadership contests, ensuring that eligibility aligns with both legal and internal standards.
The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to union constitutions, even when statutory provisions appear to offer broader protections. For educators, it serves as a reminder that membership in professional organizations often hinges on strict adherence to internal rules. The case also highlights the need for transparency in union financial practices, as Sossion’s initial payment was returned without explanation, raising questions about procedural clarity. As the debate over union governance continues, the court’s decision provides a framework for resolving similar disputes in the future.
The case has sparked renewed discussions about the balance between statutory rights and organizational autonomy in Kenya’s labor sector. While the Labour Relations Act aims to protect workers’ rights, the court’s emphasis on union constitutions reflects a broader judicial trend of respecting institutional frameworks. This approach may encourage unions to review their governance structures to ensure alignment with legal standards, fostering a more predictable environment for members seeking leadership roles.