Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNotice of Motion Application dated 9th April 2015· [2015] KEELRC 1641 (KLR)

Sella Matarimo , Brian Otieno , James Mwatha , Faith Gaceri Stephen , Teddy Chwanya , Allan Waka , Martin Mwangi Mbichi , Jennifer Wambui Mwangi , Osborn Musangi , Charles Mbugua , Bernard Kena , Stellah Wambua , Charles Wambugu , Stephen Lamba , Samuel Kamwana , Michael Wakibia & Rober Ashuma v Bakhresa Food Products (K) Limited (Cause 564 of 2015) [2015] KEELRC 1641 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 September 2015
MNMATHEWS NDERI NDUMA
922 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court froze a company's vehicles because it retrenched 17 workers without paying their legally required terminal benefits.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Seventeen former employees of the Respondent, employed on one-year contracts between January/February 2015 and January/February 2016, brought a Notice of Motion dated 9th April 2015 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from liquidating or disposing of motor vehicles listed in Appendix 5 and any assets, pending settlement of their dues and determination of the suit, plus a fast-tracked hearing. They annexed termination letters dated 31st March 2015 stating the company intended to shut its Nairobi Branch operations. Their Memorandum of Claim sought twelve months' salary as compensation for wrongful dismissal, one month's salary in lieu of notice, payment in lieu of untaken leave, and costs. The Respondent filed a replying affidavit by its Administration Officer containing a bare denial, and a statement of defence admitting the terminations of 31st March 2015 without contesting the notices or offering payment of terminal dues. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown test, the court found a prima facie case that the Claimants were retrenched and entitled under Section 40 of the Employment Act to one month's salary in lieu of notice and fifteen days' salary per year worked, none of which was paid, and that the retrenchment did not comply with Section 40. Irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured interim relief. The court restrained the Respondent from liquidating or disposing of the listed motor vehicles pending determination of the suit, or in the alternative ordered deposit of Kshs.7,164,000.00 as security within fourteen days, failing which the injunction would remain. Costs were awarded in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Interim injunction test in employment dispute

Holding

Claimants established prima facie case, irreparable harm and balance of convenience favouring injunction

Reasoning

Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found the termination letters confirmed retrenchment due to closure of Nairobi operations, entitling Claimants to Section 40 terminal benefits which were unpaid. With the Respondent closing operations and assets at risk of liquidation, irreparable harm and balance of convenience favoured the injunction.

p. 3
02

Compliance with Section 40 Employment Act in retrenchment

Holding

Prima facie the Respondent did not adhere to Section 40 in implementing the retrenchment and did not pay terminal dues

Reasoning

The Respondent filed only a bare denial, admitted the terminations of 31st March 2015, gave no reason contradicting the notices, and made no offer of payment of terminal dues, establishing a prima facie breach of Section 40.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Terminal benefits under Section 40 of the Employment Act on retrenchment include one month salary in lieu of notice and fifteen days salary for each year worked

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from liquidating and/or disposing off the motor vehicles listed in Appendix 5 pending hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.In the alternative, Respondent to deposit in Court security for the claim and costs of Kshs.7,164,000.00 within fourteen (14) days, failing which the interim injunction remains in place
  3. 3.Costs in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment dispute; interim relief under Giella v Cassman Brown

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sella Matarimo , Brian Otieno , James Mwatha , Faith Gaceri Stephen , Teddy Chwanya , Allan Waka , Martin Mwangi Mbichi , Jennifer Wambui Mwangi , Osborn Musangi , Charles Mbugua , Bernard Kena , Stellah Wambua , Charles Wambugu , Stephen Lamba , Samuel Kamwana , Michael Wakibia & Rober Ashuma v Bakhresa Food Products (K) Limited (Cause 564 of 2015) [2015] KEELRC 1641 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Notice of Motion Application dated 9th April 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1641/eng@2015-09-25

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