Kenya Airline Pilots Association v Kenya Airways Limited [2015] KEELRC 460 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to stop Kenya Airways from selling its Boeing 777 planes because the pilots' union's fears of job losses were too speculative.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case was established
No prima facie case was established; employment contracts subsist and no redundancy or termination has commenced
The court found the employment relationship intact, regulated by a CBA, and the apprehended redundancy merely speculative. The employer's decision to dispose of leased aircraft was a proprietary/commercial decision not shown to be unlawful, and the employees' interests could be secured through statutory remedies rather than restraint of asset disposal.
Irreparable loss and balance of convenience
Neither irreparable loss nor the balance of convenience favoured the Claimant
Any redundancy would be governed by section 40 and unfair termination by section 49 of the Employment Act, providing adequate compensation remedies. Stopping the sale to secure a future, unconfirmed interest would not serve the interests of justice, and the Respondent would suffer losses from abortive disposal.
Protection of employees who litigate against employers
The court cautioned that the Claimant members' employment must not be frustrated for instituting the claim, citing section 46(h) of the Employment Act
While dismissing the application, the court affirmed that the suit remains alive and that initiating legal proceedings against an employer does not constitute a fair reason for dismissal or disciplinary penalty under section 46(h) of the Employment Act.
Legal principles established
#- In employment and labour relations matters, a party seeking interlocutory orders must, in addition to the Giella principles, demonstrate the additional employment-specific grounds set out in Dr. Anne Kinyua v Nyayo Tea Zone Development Corporation
- A mandatory interlocutory injunction will not be granted in the absence of special circumstances and only in an unusually strong and clear case
- An interdict cannot be granted for an indefinite, open-ended period; the restraint must be commensurate with a definite threatened wrong
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 4th September 2015 is dismissed
- 2.Costs shall be in the cause
- 3.The suit shall remain alive for prosecution
- Jurisdiction invoked
- section 12(3)(i) and (viii) of the Industrial Court Act [Employment and Labour Relations Court Act]
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Airline Pilots Association v Kenya Airways Limited [2015] KEELRC 460 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause - Notice of Motion dated 4th September 2015 (Industrial Court, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/460/eng@2015-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.