Mohamed Yakub Athman & 29 others v Kenya Ports Authority [2016] KEELRC 1636 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court confirmed Kenya Ports Authority could dismiss striking workers for valid reasons, but still had to hear them first, paying 30 workers compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether there was an illegal strike on 27th June 2015
Yes - Claimants 21-27 engaged in a spontaneous, unannounced wildcat strike, justifying summary dismissal
The Court found the elements of a strike under Section 2 of the Labour Relations Act present: the Claimants ceased work, acting in combination, and converged at the Head Office demanding recall of the biometric clocking system and refund of deductions. The Return-to-Work Agreement itself acknowledged a withdrawal of labour. Their violent conduct - barricading and assaulting Management Officers, hurling stones - justified dismissal under Sections 44(4) and 45 of the Employment Act regardless of legality of the strike.
Whether the 1st-2nd July 2015 general strike was legal
No - it was an unprotected general strike outside the Labour Relations Act framework
The strike was called by TUC-Ke, a federation with no recognition agreement with the Respondent, over revised NHIF rates which the Respondent had no power to reverse. The subject matter was not a trade dispute between employer and employee; the High Court had already declined interim relief four days before the strike notice; there was no balloting per the Dock Workers Union Constitution; and the affiliation of the Union to TUC-Ke was unsettled. Participants therefore had no protection and could be disciplined under Section 80 of the Labour Relations Act.
Whether summary dismissal was procedurally fair
No - termination was unfair on procedural grounds despite valid substantive grounds
Section 80 of the Labour Relations Act does not exclude Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act. The Respondent conceded it did not hear the Claimants, and the plea of impracticability failed: the employees were available after the strike, were de-activated from the access system, and vacancies were advertised before hearings. The employer's own Disciplinary Handbook required observance of natural justice. The Court affirmed the principle in Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v. Roseto Flowers.
What remedies flow from unfair termination
Compensation of 6 months' gross salary per Claimant, terminal benefits, and 30 days' humane notice to vacate staff houses; no reinstatement or injunction
Although valid grounds existed, procedural unfairness merited compensation at 6 months' gross salary per Claimant. Reinstatement and continued occupation of staff houses were refused because valid grounds for dismissal existed and employment benefits cannot persist after cessation. Terminal benefits were payable under Section 18(4) of the Employment Act, and eviction from staff houses required at least 30 days' notice, humanely executed.
Legal principles established
#- Section 80 of the Labour Relations Act does not exclude the procedural fairness requirements of Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act; an employer must still hear an employee before termination even after participation in an unprotected strike
- A general strike called by an umbrella federation over a subject the employer cannot influence has no protection under the Constitution and the Labour Relations Act
- The large number of employees involved in an offence does not absolve the employer from procedural fairness
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that termination of the Claimants' contracts of employment was based on valid grounds, but did not follow a fair procedure, and was therefore unfair
- 2.Respondent to pay the Claimants 6 months' gross salary each in compensation for unfair termination
- 3.Respondent to pay the Claimants all their terminal benefits
- 4.Respondent to issue at least 30 days' notice before requiring the Claimants to vacate staff houses, with the process carried out humanely and without violence
- 5.All terminal benefits and compensation to be paid before the Claimants are removed from the staff houses
- 6.Each party to meet its own costs of the litigation
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Industrial Court jurisdiction over employment disputes; Rule 27(1)(a) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Dock Workers Union v Kenya Ports Authority [2018] KEELRC 2349 (KLR)[2018] KEELRC 2349 (KLR)8 Mar 2018applied
- Dock Workers Union (K) v Kenya Ports Authority [2015] KEELRC 164 (KLR)[2015] KEELRC 164 (KLR)4 Dec 2015
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mohamed Yakub Athman & 29 others v Kenya Ports Authority [2016] KEELRC 1636 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause Number 448 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1636/eng@2016-02-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.