Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedCause No. 1153 of 2012· [2013] KEELRC 115 (KLR)

Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Plantation Plants (K) Limited [2013] KEELRC 115 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
6 September 2013
1,981 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Industrial Court paused execution of a Kshs.19.5 million award, but only if the employer deposits the full amount in a joint account within 30 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on the Respondent's (Plantation (K) Ltd's) Notice of Motion dated 18th July 2013 seeking a stay of execution of the Industrial Court's award of 19th March 2013 and 26th June 2013 in Cause No. 1153 of 2012 pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal. The application was opposed by the Claimant union. The court identified four issues: existence of a pending appeal, arguability, nugatory-ness, and balance of convenience. On the first issue, the Notice of Appeal initially annexed related to a different cause (No. 25 of 2012); the court refused to accept a notice produced from the bar but, on perusing the record, found a proper Notice of Appeal dated 5th July 2013 and filed on 8th July 2013, and therefore considered the application on its merits. On arguability, the applicant relied on draft grounds invoking Sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act and Section 80 of the Labour Relations Act concerning dismissals after collective industrial action, and cited the South African decision in Modise v Steve's Spar on the distinction between a hearing and an ultimatum. The court observed that Kenyan law, unlike South African law, has no statutory ultimatum code, and that Section 41 protections apply before dismissal even for participation in an unlawful strike. It nonetheless assumed the appeal was arguable, though open to doubt. The court granted a conditional stay: the entire decretal sum of Kshs.19,535,302.95 was to be deposited within thirty days into a joint interest-earning account in the names of both parties, failing which the application would stand dismissed with costs; if deposited, the stay would subsist until the appeal was heard, with the motion's costs in the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a pending appeal exists to anchor a stay of execution

Holding

The Notice of Appeal originally attached related to a different case (Cause No. 25 of 2012), but the court perused the record and found a proper Notice of Appeal dated 5th July 2013 and filed on 8th July 2013, and therefore proceeded to consider the application on its merits.

Reasoning

The application had annexed a Notice of Appeal relating to Industrial Cause No. 25 of 2012 between the same parties but a different cause. Counsel sought to produce a correct notice from the bar; the court upheld the claimant's objection, holding a notice not filed with the court before the application could not be introduced later. However, on perusal of the file a proper notice was found on record, curing the defect and permitting consideration on the merits.

p. 2
02

Whether the intended appeal is arguable

Holding

The court assumed, in favour of the applicant, that the appeal is arguable, though it was clearly open to doubt, and granted a conditional stay.

Reasoning

The appeal raised points of law under Sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act and Section 80 of the Labour Relations Act concerning dismissals arising from collective industrial action. The court held its role was merely to ensure the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious. Although it doubted the merits—expressing the view that Section 41 protections apply before collective disciplinary action after an unlawful strike—it assumed arguability in the applicant's favour.

p. 4
03

Protection of the award beneficiary pending appeal

Holding

The stay was made conditional on deposit of the entire decretal amount of Kshs.19,535,302.95 into a joint interest-earning account within thirty days, failing which the application stands dismissed with costs.

Reasoning

To balance the applicant's appellate rights against the claimant's right to enjoy the fruits of the award, the court required security in the full decretal sum held jointly in an interest-earning account. This preserves the position of both parties and deters an appeal pursued only to delay satisfaction of the award.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A stay of execution pending appeal cannot be granted where no notice of appeal has been lodged; the standard questions become moot.
  • On a stay application the court's role is limited to confirming the appeal is not frivolous or vexatious, not to decide the substantive matters.
  • Under Kenyan law an ultimatum does not substitute for the hearing required by Section 41 of the Employment Act before dismissal for misconduct, including participation in an unlawful strike.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the judgment/award of 19th March 2013 and 26th June 2013 granted conditionally upon the Respondent depositing the entire decretal amount of Kshs.19,535,302.95 in a joint interest-earning account in a reputable bank in the names of the Claimant union and the Respondent and/or their legal representatives within thirty (30) days
  2. 2.If the deposit is not made within thirty days, the application for stay stands dismissed with costs
  3. 3.If the money is deposited, stay of execution remains until the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
  4. 4.Costs of the motion to be in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Industrial Court ActSection 17
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 41
  • Employment Act, 2007Sections 42(1), 43, 44(3) and (4)
  • Labour Relations Act, 2007Section 80(1)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 164(3)
  • Code of Good Practice (South Africa)item 6

Cases cited (2)

  • Modise and others vs. Steve's Spar Blackheath
    Case No. JA 29/99
  • Bentack Kilindo versus Schenker Limited
Jurisdiction invoked
Industrial Court Act No. 20 of 2011, Section 17 (appeals lie to the Court of Appeal) and the court's incidental powers on stay of execution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Plantation Plants (K) Limited [2013] KEELRC 115 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Cause No. 1153 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/115/eng@2013-09-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.