Kenya Tea Growers Association v Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal paused enforcement of a major tea-sector pay award pending appeal, but employers must still pay the agreed 15% raise.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal is arguable
The Court found the appeal arguable on jurisdiction: whether the ELR Court exceeded its statutory powers in the awards and whether it should have analysed the sector's capacity to pay.
The applicant argued that although it submitted to the trial court's jurisdiction, statute limited and capped the orders the court could grant. The Court agreed this was arguable because orders made without power would affect the whole judgment, and it was also arguable that the trial court ought to have analysed the effect of salary increments on the tea industry before granting them.
Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory
The nugatory limb was satisfied because compliance would involve colossal, potentially unrecoverable payments, evidenced by a computed loss of Kshs.578,598,571 for one member company alone.
The applicant deponed that implementing the judgment would cause a 60% wage bill increase, that it is a price taker at the tea auction unable to pass on the increase, and that sums paid to employees would be irrecoverable. The Court found the computed loss for Williamson Tea alone colossal and potentially unrecoverable, satisfying the second limb.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy two limbs: the appeal or intended appeal must be arguable, and it must be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted; rule 5(2)(b) jurisdiction is original and discretionary.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 20th June 2016 in ELR No. 1997 of 2014 (consolidated with ELR 14 of 2014) granted pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal
- 2.Stay granted subject to the parties implementing the 15% increment agreed for the year 2014
- 3.Costs of the motion to abide the intended appeal
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho
- ELR Cause No. 1997 of 2014 (consolidated with ELR Cause No. 14 of 2014)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rules 5(2)(b) and 103 of the Court of Appeal Rules (stay of execution pending intended appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Tea Growers Association v Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union", Case Analysis (2016). Civil Application No. Nai. 159 of 2016 (UR. 123/2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2016/196/eng@2016-10-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.