Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedIndustrial Cause (Memorandum of Claim dated 11th November 2013)· [2014] KEELRC 377 (KLR)

Rift Valley Railways Workers’ Union (K) v Railways And Allied Workers’ Union [2014] KEELRC 377 (KLR)

Industrial Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
11 July 2014
MNMathews N. Nduma
525 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

#

Kenya's Industrial Court dismissed a railway union's bid for emergency orders over union assets, penalising it for filing duplicate cases instead of pursuing its pending recognition dispute.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant Union, registered on 21st December 2012 and a rival of the older Respondent Union in the railway sector, filed a memorandum of claim dated 11th November 2013 seeking orders that tenants of Rahu House continue depositing rents into its account or into court, a declaratory order barring Respondent officials from transacting business over the asset, a freezing of the Respondent's accounts with an independent audit, and a declaration that the Respondent had abdicated its core mandate. Simultaneously it sought interim orders to the same effect. The court, per Mathews N. Nduma, Principal Judge, confirmed jurisdiction under Section 12(1)(d) of the Industrial Court Act over disputes between trade unions. It noted that the Claimant Union had no recognition agreement with Rift Valley Railways and that a recognition dispute was pending in consolidated Industrial Cause Nos. 116 and 241 of 2013. Applying the Giela v Casman Brown test, the court held that the Claimant Union had not established a prima facie case with a possibility of success, and therefore did not consider the other pre-conditions for an interim injunction. It further held that the issues raised ought to have been raised in the consolidated recognition dispute, and that the filing of a multiplicity of suits amounted to abuse of the process of the court. The court dismissed the interlocutory application, ordered the main suit to remain in abeyance pending determination of the recognition dispute, and awarded costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant Union established a prima facie case for interim relief

Holding

The Claimant Union failed to establish a prima facie right entitling it to the interim orders sought

Reasoning

Applying the Giela v Casman Brown test, the court found that the Claimant Union had not demonstrated a prima facie case with a possibility of success on the facts. Having failed the first pre-condition, the court did not consider the other conditions for an interim injunction. The court also noted the pending recognition dispute and the Claimant Union's lack of a recognition agreement with the employer.

p. 2
02

Whether the multiplicity of suits constituted abuse of court process

Holding

Filing multiple suits over the same subject matter amounts to abuse of process; the issue raised here ought to have been raised in the consolidated Cause Nos. 116 and 241 of 2013

Reasoning

The court observed that the Claimant Union had simultaneously filed suits concerning the same matters, with a pending recognition dispute in consolidated Causes 116 and 241 of 2013. The court held that the issues raised ought to have been raised in that consolidated suit and that the multiplicity of suits wasted judicial time and constituted an abuse of process, justifying staying the main suit in abeyance.

p. 2
03

Jurisdiction of the Industrial Court over disputes between trade unions

Holding

The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes between Trade Unions under Section 12(1)(d) of the Industrial Court Act

Reasoning

The court confirmed its jurisdiction on the basis of Section 12(1)(d) of the Industrial Court Act, which confers power to hear and determine disputes between trade unions. The parties being rival unions in the railway sector with competing interests, the dispute fell within this jurisdictional grant.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking an interim injunction must establish a prima facie case with a possibility of success; if it fails that threshold, the court need not consider the other pre-conditions (Giela v Casman Brown)
  • Filing a multiplicity of suits over the same subject matter amounts to abuse of the process of the Court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The interlocutory application seeking interim orders is dismissed
  2. 2.The main suit remains in abeyance pending the hearing and determination of the recognition dispute filed by the Claimant Union in Cause No. 116 and 241 of 2013
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Industrial Court ActSection 12(1)(d)

Cases cited (1)

  • Giela V. Casman Brown
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12(1)(d) of the Industrial Court Act - disputes between Trade Unions

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rift Valley Railways Workers’ Union (K) v Railways And Allied Workers’ Union [2014] KEELRC 377 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Industrial Cause (Memorandum of Claim dated 11th November 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/377/eng@2014-07-11

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