Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization v Kenya Scientific Research International Technical and Institution Workers Union
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal found an employment judge mishandled 49 workers' redundancy claims and ordered the whole case retried before a different judge.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Legality of the trial court's partial judgment referring the matter to the Labour Office for tabulation
The procedure was unknown in law and unlawful; the court had to determine the reliefs itself, and the Labour Office was functus officio once the suit was filed
The learned judge had substantively determined entitlement to notice pay, severance, house allowance, overtime, underpayments and leave, yet directed parties back to the Labour Office for fresh tabulation before a further judgment. The Court held that such a procedure is not known in law; if an assessment was needed it should have been ordered during the hearing. Once the suit was filed, the Labour Office was functus officio and the court had to see the suit to its logical conclusion.
Improper 'one for all' approach to 49 grievants with individual contracts
The trial judge erred in awarding reliefs collectively; each grievant's individual contract and claim ought to have been determined separately
Although the heading of the claims was common, each of the 49 grievants had specific, individual prayers and contracts running on their own terms. The employer had opposed each claim individually and alleged some grievants had left employment before the redundancy. The blanket approach prejudiced the parties' right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution, warranting a retrial before a different judge.
Fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution
The collective disposition deprived both the grievants and the appellant of the opportunity to have each claim heard and challenged
The Court invoked Article 50 and the decision in Mbaki & Others v Macharia & Another, emphasising that the right to be heard is a valued right and that justice is offended where a party's rights are prejudiced without an opportunity to be heard. All 49 grievants and the appellant were entitled to a fair hearing on each claim, supporting the order for retrial.
Power to order retrial
Rule 33 (c) of the Court of Appeal Rules empowers the Court to order a retrial where justice dictates, and the Court has not hesitated to do so
Relying on Daudi Kiptugen v Commissioner of Lands and Meya Agri Traders Ltd v Elgon House (2010) Ltd, the Court confirmed its retrial power and found the interests of justice demanded a retrial before a judge other than Onyango, J. Determination of the remaining grounds would be premature.
Legal principles established
#- A trial court in employment disputes involving multiple grievants on individual contracts must determine each grievant's claim separately rather than applying a blanket 'one for all' approach
- A trial court may not refer a suit back to the Labour Office for tabulation and thereafter render a later 'final judgment'; it is duty bound to determine the reliefs sought without involving third parties
- The Labour Office becomes functus officio once a suit arising from the conciliated dispute is filed in court
- The Court of Appeal has power to order a retrial under rule 33 (c) of its Rules where the dictates of justice so require
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal allowed to the extent that the judgment and orders made on 26th April 2019 are set aside
- 2.The respondent's memorandum of claim amended on 13th March 2017 to be placed before a judge of the Employment and Labour Relations Court, other than Onyango, J., for hearing and disposal (retrial)
- 3.Each party to bear its own costs
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court, Kisumu
- Kisumu ELRC Cause No. 281 of 2016
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the ELRC; retrial power under rule 33 (c) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Gwashe & 26 others v Kudheiha Workers (Cause E065 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1157 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1157 (KLR)24 Apr 2025applied
- Aron v Bokhol Transporters Limited (Appeal E185 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 805 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 805 (KLR)13 Mar 2025applied
- Mohamed v Balali (Appeal E106 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 758 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 758 (KLR)6 Mar 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization v Kenya Scientific Research International Technical and Institution Workers Union", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1577/eng@2024-11-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.