Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedIndustrial Cause No. 715 of 2014 (consolidated with Nairobi Industrial Cause No. 830 of 2014, formerly Nakuru Industrial Cause No. 140 of 2014)· [2014] KEELRC 1147 (KLR)

Redlands Roses Limited v Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union [2014] KEELRC 1147 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
4 June 2014
LMLinnet Mbaru
6,476 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~26 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court blocked a union from striking over a worker's suspension and voided orders the union obtained elsewhere without full disclosure.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Two consolidated applications in Industrial Cause No. 715 of 2014 were decided by the Industrial Court at Nairobi on 4th June 2014. Redlands Roses Limited, a flower exporter, sought injunctions restraining the Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union from calling or effecting industrial action over the suspension of an employee, Christopher Makhoha, following a workplace fight, and sought setting aside of orders the union had obtained in Nakuru (IC 140 of 2014, now consolidated as IC 830 of 2014). The union contended that what occurred was a peaceful demonstration, not a strike, that the workers were locked out by the employer, that service of the Nairobi orders on Henry Omasire was invalid as he was not a principal officer, and that the Nakuru suit was filed in good faith given its head office location. The court framed four issues: proper service, strike versus lock-out, the injunction, and setting aside the Nakuru orders. It held that service on Omasire as National Organising Secretary was valid under Rule 12 of the Industrial Court Rules, so the union had notice of the restraining orders; that the Nakuru orders were obtained without disclosure of material facts and had to be vacated. On whether there was a strike or lock-out, the court found the affidavit evidence contradictory and deferred determination to full hearing. It affirmed the employer's right to discipline employees and the union's role of representation, grounded in Article 41 fair labour practices. The Nakuru orders were set aside, an injunction issued pending hearing of the cause, pleadings timelines fixed, and costs were awarded in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of service of court orders on the union

Holding

Service on Henry Omasire, National Organising Secretary, was proper service on the union

Reasoning

Rule 12 of the Industrial Court Rules permits service on a secretary, director or principal officer of a corporate body. The court held that a National Organising Secretary is a person deemed principal and cannot extricate himself from Rule 12. Having been served on 6th May 2014, the union could not claim ignorance of the restraining orders issued on 5th May 2014 in IC 715 of 2014.

p. 6
02

Setting aside orders in IC 140 of 2014 for non-disclosure

Holding

The Nakuru orders were set aside because they were obtained without disclosure of material facts

Reasoning

The union filed IC 140 of 2014 in Nakuru while in possession of restraining orders from Nairobi and did not disclose this to the Nakuru court. The court found the respondent engaged in multiplicity of suits and forum shopping, and that a party who does not make full disclosure cannot enjoy equitable relief.

p. 6
03

Whether there was a strike or lock-out

Holding

Deferred to full hearing for lack of clear evidence

Reasoning

The affidavits of the parties gave contradictory accounts of the events of 5th May 2014. The court found the summary did not give a clear picture, and deciding on contested affidavit assertions would lose material elements necessary for a just decision.

p. 7
04

Employer's disciplinary powers versus union rights

Holding

Disciplinary action is the employer's right; union participation is limited to representing members within the process

Reasoning

The court held the union cannot dictate which employee faces disciplinary action; its role is to ensure its member is represented. Where a disciplinary process disregards due process, the affected employee may file a claim. Conversely the employer must ensure due process, fair hearing and natural justice within fair labour practices under Article 41 of the Constitution.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • Service on a trade union official of the rank of National Organising Secretary constitutes valid service under Rule 12 of the Industrial Court Rules
  • Orders obtained without full and frank disclosure of material facts, including existence of subsisting orders in a related suit, must be set aside
  • An employer retains the right to discipline an employee for misconduct notwithstanding unionisation, and the union cannot dictate who faces disciplinary action
  • Fair labour practices require parties to follow agreed dispute resolution mechanisms before resorting to industrial action

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The orders issued under IC 140 of 2014, Nakuru are set aside and time extended from 4th June 2014 with regard to the action taken by the claimant against Christopher Makhoha
  2. 2.The respondent, its agents, members or servants are restrained from causing, effecting or calling for any industrial action by peaceful demonstrations or strike by the claimant's employees regarding the suspension of Christopher Makhoha pending hearing and determination of the cause
  3. 3.The issue of whether there was an illegal strike or a lock-out to be addressed after a full hearing
  4. 4.Any party wishing to amend pleadings has 7 days to notify the other party, who shall reply within 7 days, after which the registry will allocate a hearing date for the main cause on priority basis
  5. 5.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Labour Relations Actsection 2 (definitions of strike and lock-out); section 76; section 80; section 2 (principal officers)
  • Employment Actsection 2 (definition of strike); section 8
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 37, 41(1)
  • Industrial Court Actsection 12(3); section 11(1)(b)
  • Industrial Court RulesRule 12 (service on a corporate body)
  • ILO Convention 153not specified

Cases cited (6)

  • Kenya Tea Growers Association versus Francis Atwoli & 5 Others
    Petition No. 64 of 2010
  • Saflo Ltd versus Lloyd Masika
    [2010] eKLR
  • N O B versus A A O
    [2014] eKLR
  • Benjamin Moses & 2 others versus Registrar General & 4 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Rift Valley Textiles Limited v Edward Onyango Oganda
    Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1992
  • Elizabeth Washeke and 62 Others versus Airtel Networks (K) Ltd et al
    Industrial Cause No. 1972 of 2012
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12(3) of the Industrial Court Act (dispute resolution jurisdiction over labour/industrial relations disputes between employer and trade union)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Redlands Roses Limited v Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union [2014] KEELRC 1147 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Industrial Cause No. 715 of 2014 (consolidated with Nairobi Industrial Cause No. 830 of 2014, formerly Nakuru Industrial Cause No. 140 of 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/1147/eng@2014-06-04

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