Samson Arap Bii & 9 others v Benard Kiplagat Kilele t/a North Njoro Farm & 2 others [2015] KEELRC 1133 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to grant former employees permanent protection over farm land at an interim stage, pointing to an existing agreement preserving their access.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a permanent injunction could issue at the interlocutory stage
Order 2 of the motion could not be granted because permanent orders are not granted at an interlocutory stage and no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated
The Court held that it is not the practice to grant permanent relief at an interlocutory stage. The Claimants, seeking a permanent injunction before the main cause had been heard, had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying such relief. The substantive claim of wrongful dismissal and entitlement to remain on the land would be determined at the hearing of the main suit.
Whether orders 3 and 4 of the motion should be granted given the subsisting consent order
Orders 3 and 4 were refused because the consent order of 20 May 2014, permitting the Claimants to continue cultivating and occupying housing accommodation, remained in force
The Court perused the record and confirmed that counsel consented to the order of 20 May 2014 maintaining the status quo. Since that consent order was still in place, granting orders 3 and 4 would serve no purpose. The Court also noted that no third-party interest had been disclosed at the time the consent order was made, and it could not speculate on whether such interest existed or its nature.
Whether orders could be made against non-parties (Gathee / Lawrence Karani Silas)
The Court declined to make orders against Gathee or Lawrence Karani Silas because they were not parties to the Cause and had not been afforded an opportunity to be heard
The Interested Party argued the consent order did not bind him and that the Claimants had no claim over the land, the employment relationship having ended in 2003. The Court held it would be unjust and unfair to make orders against persons who were not parties to the Cause without giving them a hearing. The Interested Party was left to consider options for joining the proceedings.
Treatment of the Further Amended Memorandum of Claim filed without leave
The Court suo moto struck out the Further Amended Memorandum of Claim filed on 19 February 2015 as it was filed outside the agreed timelines and without leave
On 3 December 2014 the Claimants had been granted leave to file an amended claim, but on 19 January 2015 they retracted and confirmed the 10 March 2014 Amended Memorandum of Claim stood. They nonetheless purported to file a Further Amended Memorandum of Claim on 19 February 2015, outside the agreed timelines and without leave, which the Court struck out on its own motion.
Legal principles established
#- Permanent injunctions are not granted at the interlocutory stage absent exceptional circumstances
- A court cannot make orders against persons who are not parties to the cause without affording them an opportunity to be heard
- Where a consent order protecting a party's occupation is in place, a party alleging breach must seek redress through the normal legal procedures rather than fresh interlocutory orders
Court orders
#- 1.The motion dated 24 February 2015 was dismissed
- 2.Costs of the motion to the Respondents
- 3.The Further Amended Memorandum of Claim filed on 19 February 2015 without leave was struck out suo moto by the Court
- 4.Mr. Karanja for the Interested Party to consider options available if the Interested Party wishes to participate in the proceedings
- 5.The parties to consider the ruling in Benard Mukolwe & 122 Ors v Karuturi Ltd (in receivership) & 4 Ors on entitlement to accommodation when the employment relationship has ended
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Industrial Court over employment and labour relations disputes (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act); the Cause was filed as High Court Industrial Cause No. 263/13
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Samson Arap Bii & 9 others v Benard Kiplagat Kilele t/a North Njoro Farm & 2 others [2015] KEELRC 1133 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). High Court Industrial Cause No. 263 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1133/eng@2015-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.