Kenya Scientific Research International Technical And Institutions Workers’ Union v Black & Beauty Products Limited [2014] KEELRC 258 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Court)

30 September 2014

MMM. Mbaru

1,329 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

Kenya's Employment Court ruled a union can sue an employer for union dues even after an earlier case between them, because the claims were different.

What this practically means

Executive summary

In this interlocutory ruling, the Industrial Court at Nairobi determined a preliminary objection raised by the Respondent, Black & Beauty Products Limited, that the Claimant union's suit and application dated 5th September 2014 were res judicata, the same claim having been dealt with in Industrial Cause No. 1363 of 2012, where access orders were recorded on 24th May 2014. The Respondent further alleged the Claimant had not achieved a simple majority, had obtained check off forms by fraud, and that a rival union, the Kenya Union of Hair and Beauty Salon Workers, was also seeking recognition in Cause No. 1041 of 2013. The Claimant countered that the prior cause concerned access to premises, while the present claim concerns deduction and remittance of union dues under section 48 of the Labour Relations Act 2007, following recruitment of over 51% of the employees, and that the dispute had been reported to the Minister under section 66. Applying the elements of res judicata from GR Mandaria v Rattan Singh and Abok James Odera v John Patrick Machira, Judge M. Mbaru held that although the parties were the same and the earlier cause was conclusively determined, the prayers and cause of action in the current suit are fundamentally different, one employer legitimately facing successive distinct workplace disputes. The suit was therefore held not to be res judicata; the Respondent's objections were dismissed with costs to the Claimant.

Key legal issues

Whether the present suit seeking deduction of union dues is res judicata given the prior determination in Industrial Cause No. 1363 of 2012 which concerned access to premises for union recruitment

Holding

The suit is not res judicata. Although the parties are the same and the prior cause was heard and determined, the orders sought in the current suit arise from a fundamentally different cause of action.

Reasoning

The court applied the test in GR Mandaria v Rattan Singh and Abok James Odera v John Patrick Machira: there must be a previous suit between the same parties in which the same matter in issue was heard and conclusively determined by a competent court. Comparing the prayers in Cause No. 1363 of 2012 (access to premises for unionisation) with the present prayers (deduction and remittance of union dues under section 48 of the Labour Relations Act), the court found the prayers and causes of action fundamentally different. One employer may face different workplace disputes within unionisation; filing claims separately is preferable but not fatal. The objection was therefore dismissed with costs to the Claimant.

p. 3

Legal principles established

A suit is not res judicata where, though between the same parties, the cause of action and orders sought are different from those in the previous suit.
A party is not precluded from bringing a subsequent claim on a different cause of action even after a conclusive determination in a prior suit between the same parties.

Court orders

1.The Respondent's preliminary objection on res judicata is dismissed
2.Costs awarded to the Claimant

Authorities

Legislation

Labour Relations Actsection 66
Labour Relations Act 2007section 48

Cases cited (2)

GR Mandaria versus Rattan Sign
[1969] EA 118
Abok James Odera versus John Patrick Machira
[2001] Civil Application No. 49 of 2001

Jurisdiction invoked: Labour Relations Act and Industrial Court jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes (trade union dues/recognitional matters)

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Scientific Research International Technical And Institutions Workers’ Union v Black & Beauty Products Limited [2014] KEELRC 258 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Cause No. 1579 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/258/eng@2014-09-30

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