Leonard Omondi Aluko (Acting on his own behalf and on behalf of Kenya Union of Courier and Allied Workers) & 4 others v G4s Kenya Limited (G4s Courier Services) [2015] KEELRC 1581 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court protected Seventh-Day Adventist employees from discipline for refusing to work Saturdays, and blocked a punitive transfer, pending full hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether SDA devotee employees made out a prima facie case with probability of success on their claim that being compelled to work on Saturdays violates Articles 32 and 27 of the Constitution
Yes - the court found the Applicants established a prima facie case with a probability of success and granted interim preservation orders
The court considered Article 32 of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of conscience, religion, belief and opinion, including observance of a day of worship, and prohibits compelling a person to act contrary to their belief. Weighing the Applicants' religious observance claim against the Respondent's operational and administrative arguments, and applying the established interlocutory principles, the court was satisfied the Applicants' claim was arguable and merited preservation of the status quo pending full hearing.
Whether the transfer of the 2nd Applicant from the courier division to the guarding section should be stayed pending determination of the main suit
Yes - the transfer was restrained as it was said to be prejudicial, amount to an unfair change of working conditions, and circumvent earlier court orders
The 2nd Applicant demonstrated that the transfer to an entirely different industry (guarding) was against her wishes, unconsulted, and prejudicial, while other SDA employees had been accommodated in the courier division. The court found this raised a serious question to be tried and preserved the position by restraining implementation of the transfer letter pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant seeking interlocutory relief must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, per Giella v Cassman Brown principles
- Every person has the right to manifest religion through observance of a day of worship and may not be compelled to act contrary to their belief or religion
Court orders
#- 1.Confirmation of prayer 6: restraining order against the Respondent, its managers, supervisors, employees and/or agents from taking any disciplinary action against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Applicants and other SDA devotee employees on account of observing Saturday as a day of worship pending hearing and determination of the claim
- 2.Restraint against the Respondent from implementing the transfer of the 2nd Applicant contained in the letter of transfer dated 3rd December 2014 pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 3.Direction that the Applicants be given a hearing date on priority basis at the registry
- 4.Costs in the course
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 32, 27 and 24 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, read with Section 27(2) of the Employment Act, 2007; interlocutory relief under the Giella v Cassman Brown principles
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Leonard Omondi Aluko (Acting on his own behalf and on behalf of Kenya Union of Courier and Allied Workers) & 4 others v G4s Kenya Limited (G4s Courier Services) [2015] KEELRC 1581 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No 1984 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1581/eng@2015-04-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.