Joel Bulinga Anyambe & 146 Others v Unga Group Limited [2009] KECA 56 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that retrenched Unga workers could not relitigate their dismissal and that terminal dues run only to the redundancy date.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appellants' suit in the High Court was res judicata by reason of the Industrial Court award of 2nd December 1998
- 2.What was the last/effective date for computing the appellants' terminal benefits following the retrenchment
- 3.Whether the superior court lacked jurisdiction under section 17 of the Trade Disputes Act
- 4.Whether the appellants' claim was for special damages that should have been specifically pleaded
Key legal issues
#Date from which terminal benefits are computed on retrenchment
Terminal dues are computed up to the date the redundancy was declared (April 1998), not the date of the Industrial Court award; the appellants are thereafter entitled only to interest from the date of judgment or the award.
The court reasoned by analogy to section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act, which ties a suit to the local limits of the court where the cause of action arose. The cause of action arose when the employer wrongfully terminated employment, i.e. when redundancy was declared in April 1998. Liability is referable to the date the cause of action accrued, and section 26 (interest from the date of the decree) supports computation only to that date.
Res judicata: effect of the Industrial Court award on the High Court suit
The High Court suit was res judicata to the extent that the appellants sought to relitigate the propriety of their termination, since the same issue between the same parties had been heard and finally decided by the competent Industrial Court.
Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act bars a court from trying a suit or issue directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties before a competent court that heard and finally decided it. The Industrial Court had jurisdiction over the redundancy dispute, heard it fully and rendered its award on 2nd December 1998. The High Court claim for damages was founded on the same question of redundancy, so the subsequent suit was barred.
Whether the claim was unpleaded special damages
The Court declined to determine the special damages issue as unnecessary given its conclusions.
Having found that terminal dues were properly computed to the date of the redundancy declaration and that the suit was res judicata, the Court considered it unnecessary to address whether the claim was for special damages requiring specific pleading, or to discuss the authorities counsel had cited on that point.
Legal principles established
#- A suit in the High Court seeking to relitigate the legality of a termination already heard and finally decided by the Industrial Court is res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.
- Where an employee's cause of action arises from a redundancy declared in April 1998, terminal dues are computed only up to the date the redundancy was declared, with interest thereafter running from the date of judgment or award, not from the date of a later Industrial Court award.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- H.C.C.C. No. 98 of 2000
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court (Appellate Jurisdiction Act framework; no specific provision stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#The appellants' claim that terminal benefits should be computed up to 2nd December 1998 (date of the Industrial Court award)
Liability is referable to the date the cause of action accrued, namely April 1998 when redundancy was declared; thereafter only interest from the date of judgment or award is payable
Relitigation of the legality of the retrenchment in the High Court
The same issue had been heard and finally decided by the competent Industrial Court
Costs
The appeal is dismissed with costs (costs of the appeal to the respondent).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the result and for the reasons we have given above, this appeal is without merit. Accordingly we order that it be and it is hereby dismissed with costs.
we hold that any terminal dues due to the appellants would be properly computed up to the date when their redundancy was declared. Thereafter all they would be entitled to is interest adjudged on that sum calculated from the date of judgment or the award.
The High Court suit being a subsequent suit is by reason of section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, res judicata.
Liability is referable to the date when the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the suit as both High Court Civil Case No. 98 of 2000 (in the appeal heading) and High Court Civil Case No. 98 of 1999 (in the body), an internal inconsistency in the case number of the decision appealed from.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joel Bulinga Anyambe & 146 Others v Unga Group Limited [2009] KECA 56 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2009). Civil Appeal 275 of 2003. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2009/56/eng@2009-11-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.