Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2013] KEELRC 339 (KLR)

KENYA PETROLEUM OIL WORKERS UNION V NATIONAL OIL CORPORATION OF KENYA [2013] KEELRC 339 (KLR)

Industrial Court
25 January 2013
NMNzioki wa Makau
437 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling of the Industrial Court at Nairobi on a Notice of Motion dated 11th October 2011, urged on 6th December 2012 by the Claimant trade union through Mr. Obure Advocate, supported by the affidavit of Patrick Odari. The Claimant sought orders lifting the suspension of a grievant and reinstatement without loss of pay. It was argued that the respondent's actions violated Section 4(1), (2) and (3) of the Labour Relations Act and Section 44(4) of the Employment Act, and that the suspension constituted discrimination on account of trade union activities, contrary to ILO Convention 135 Article 1. The Claimant pointed to unequal treatment: a Managing Director and Supply Manager implicated in fraud by the EACC had not been suspended, while the grievant, who was never arrested or charged, was suspended beyond 30 days. Miss Osoro for the respondent submitted that the application had been overtaken by events because the grievants had been summarily dismissed, and the court does not issue orders in vain; she relied on the affidavit of Cecilia Kalungu-Uvyu sworn on 20/11/2012 and the letter of summary dismissal. In reply, Mr. Obure complained that the respondent suspended and dismissed the grievant while the matter was pending before the court. Justice Nzioki wa Makau held that the interim relief application had been overtaken by events and that adjudicating it would be an academic exercise. He noted the claimant retained the option of a full hearing of the claim, where damages for the dismissal could be awarded if proved. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether interim relief (lifting suspension and reinstatement) could still be granted after the grievant's summary dismissal

Holding

The application was dismissed as overtaken by events; granting the orders would be an academic exercise

Reasoning

The court heard submissions that the grievant had already been summarily dismissed by letter dated before the hearing, making the interim orders sought incapable of practical effect. The court held that issuing orders in vain is not proper, but preserved the claimant's right to a full hearing of the claim, where damages for the dismissal could be awarded if proved.

p. 2
02

Whether the respondent's actions during the pendency of the application constituted an affront to the court process

Holding

The claimant argued that suspending and dismissing the grievant while the matter was pending was against the spirit of the court process, but the court did not determine this point given its disposition

Reasoning

Counsel for the claimant submitted that the respondent had been given inter-partes dates yet proceeded to suspend and dismiss the grievant, contrary to the spirit of the court process and due process. The court did not rule on this submission, having found the application overtaken by events.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court does not grant interim relief that has been overtaken by events, as such orders would be issued in vain; the aggrieved party may still pursue the substantive claim including damages.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Applicant's application is dismissed with no order as to Costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations ActSection 4(1)(2) and (3)
  • Employment ActSection 44(4)
  • ILO Convention 135Article 1
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Industrial Court (no specific provision cited in judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "KENYA PETROLEUM OIL WORKERS UNION V NATIONAL OIL CORPORATION OF KENYA [2013] KEELRC 339 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/339/eng@2013-01-25

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