Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v Kenya Tea Growers Association [2015] KEELRC 1064 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court merged two duplicate union-employer cases into one, refusing to punish union officials, so both sides now argue everything in a single hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Consolidation of the parallel CBA suits
The court consolidated the two suits and transferred Cause No. 14 of 2014 from Kericho to Nairobi, finding that the suits raise substantially similar issues in the same dispute over the 2014-2015 CBA.
Both parties agreed two suits existed over the same 2014-2015 CBA dispute. The court invoked its principal objective under section 3 of the Industrial Court Act and Rule 23 to consolidate where common questions of fact or law arise. It found the respondent's list of issues adds two fundamental issues (rates of pay and productivity, summary dismissal) that should form part of a comprehensive consolidated list. Consolidation also minimises movement and costs in an economic dispute and serves industrial peace.
Whether the Nairobi suit was an abuse of process warranting striking out
The claim was not struck out; consolidation better serves the court's objectives and preserves the substance of the dispute.
The respondent argued the Nairobi suit was a replica filed despite knowledge of the Kericho claim, amounting to abuse of process and material non-disclosure. The court held service of summons in Cause No. 14 of 2014 was a matter of evidence that was never gone into, the respondent only made submissions. Striking out would lose the quality of the claim's content, whereas consolidation ensures effective arbitration and expeditious disposal to foster settlement.
Sanction of union officials for alleged abuse of court process
No sanction was imposed; the allegation of abuse depended on unproven service of summons and became moot once consolidation was ordered.
The respondent sought sanctions against Meshack Khisa and Thomas Kipkemboi for filing a replica suit. The court found that whether the claimant knew of the Kericho suit within the intervening 10 days was a matter of evidence which the respondent did not adduce, only submissions. Having resolved the consolidation question, the court declined to add more on the sanction question.
Pleading requirements under Rule 4(e) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules
Parties must set out in pleadings or submissions any principle, policy, convention, law, industrial relations issue or management practice relied upon, a procedure slightly different from the Civil Procedure Act and Rules.
The court noted the Kericho claim's issues were not structured under Rule 4. It explained that Rule 4(e) requires parties to disclose the basis of their claim in advance, which assists the other party and the court in preparing for hearing and judgment, rather than raising such matters only at submissions stage. The court referenced its earlier decision in Fredrick Kariuki v Bank of India.
Legal principles established
#- The Industrial Court may on its own motion consolidate suits that raise common questions of fact or law, and may transfer files between registries, as an administrative action to further the effective, just and expeditious resolution of disputes.
- Where two suits between the same parties over the same CBA dispute exist, consolidation is preferred to striking out because it preserves the full issues for resolution.
- In interlocutory applications of this nature, there is no winner or loser and each party bears their own costs.
Court orders
#- 1.Consolidation of the two suits (Cause No. 1997 of 2014 Nairobi and Cause No. 14 of 2014 Kericho) effected
- 2.Transfer of Cause No. 14 of 2014 from the Kericho Employment and Labour Relations Court Registry to Nairobi for the purposes of consolidation
- 3.Hearing before any Judicial Officer of the court, to be allocated a hearing date on priority basis
- 4.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(1) and (4) of the Industrial Court Act and Rules 16, 23 and 27 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v Kenya Tea Growers Association [2015] KEELRC 1064 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No. 1997 of 2014 (Nairobi), with reference to Cause No. 14 of 2014 (Kericho). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1064/eng@2015-05-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.