Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause Number 448 of 2015· [2016] KEELRC 1636 (KLR)

Mohamed Yakub Athman & 29 others v Kenya Ports Authority [2016] KEELRC 1636 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya (Industrial Court) at Mombasa
29 February 2016
9,914 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~40 min to read original · ~4 min brief

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

#
Thirty employees of Kenya Ports Authority, members and officials of the Dock Workers Union, were summarily dismissed following industrial unrest in mid-2015. Seven Claimants (21-27) were dismissed over events of 27th June 2015, when employees converged at the Head Office over pay slip errors and the biometric clocking system; the Court found this a spontaneous, illegal wildcat strike marked by violence against Management Officers, justifying dismissal under Section 80 of the Labour Relations Act and Sections 44(4) and 45 of the Employment Act. The remaining Claimants were dismissed for participating in a general strike on 1st and 2nd July 2015 called by TUC-Ke over revised NHIF rates. The Court held this was not a protected strike: it was called by a federation with no recognition agreement with the Respondent, over subject matter (legislation) the employer could not influence, after the High Court had declined interim relief, and without the balloting required by the Union's Constitution. The Court observed that a general strike aimed at changing law in disregard of the judicial process is unprotected. However, the Court held that Section 80 of the Labour Relations Act does not displace the procedural fairness requirements of Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act; the Respondent never heard the Claimants before dismissal, so termination was procedurally unfair despite valid grounds. Reinstatement, continued occupation of staff houses, an injunction, and damages for pain and suffering were refused. The Court awarded each Claimant six months' gross salary as compensation, terminal benefits under Section 18(4) of the Employment Act, and ordered at least 30 days' humane notice before vacating staff houses, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether there was an illegal strike on 27th June 2015

Holding

Yes - Claimants 21-27 engaged in a spontaneous, unannounced wildcat strike, justifying summary dismissal

Reasoning

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.

p. 10
02

Whether the 1st-2nd July 2015 general strike was legal

Holding

No - it was an unprotected general strike outside the Labour Relations Act framework

Reasoning

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.

p. 14
03

Whether summary dismissal was procedurally fair

Holding

No - termination was unfair on procedural grounds despite valid substantive grounds

Reasoning

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.

p. 15
04

What remedies flow from unfair termination

Holding

Compensation of 6 months' gross salary per Claimant, terminal benefits, and 30 days' humane notice to vacate staff houses; no reinstatement or injunction

Reasoning

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.

p. 16

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. 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. 2.Respondent to pay the Claimants 6 months' gross salary each in compensation for unfair termination
  3. 3.Respondent to pay the Claimants all their terminal benefits
  4. 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. 5.All terminal benefits and compensation to be paid before the Claimants are removed from the staff houses
  6. 6.Each party to meet its own costs of the litigation

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 24(1), 24(5)(d), 36, 37, 41(1), 41(2)(d), 47
  • Employment Act 2007Sections 5, 18(4), 41, 44(3), 44(4), 45, 46, 76
  • Labour Relations Act 2007Sections 2, 76, 76(1)(a), 78(1)(h), 79, 80
  • National Hospital Insurance Fund ActBoard consultation requirements
  • Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010Rules 21, 27(1)(a)
  • Kenya Gazette Supplement Number 12 / Legal Notice Number 14 of 2015 (NHIF revised rates)revised NHIF contribution rates

Cases cited (13)

  • Mary Chemweno Kiptui v. Kenya Pipeline Company Limited
    [2014] e-KLR
  • Teachers Service Commission v. KNUT & KUPPET
    [2012] e-KLR
  • P.J. Dave Flowers Limited v. KPAWU & Anor
    [2014] e-KLR
  • KUDHEIHA v. Pwani University
    [2015] e-KLR
  • Seth Panyako & 5 Ors. v. The AG & 2 Ors.
    [2013] e-KLR
  • County Government of Uasin Gishu v. Kenya National Union of Nurses
    [2014] e-KLR
  • Kenya Engineering Workers Union v. Narcol Aluminium Rolling Mills Limited
    [2015] e-KLR
  • EPPWAWU v. Metrofile (Pty) Limited
    [2002] ZACC 30; [2004] 2 BLLR 103 (LAC)
  • TUC-Ke v. N.H.I.F (Nairobi High Court Petition Number 61 of 2015)
    [2015] e-KLR
  • The Public Service Commission of Kenya & 4 Ors v Trade Union Congress of Kenya & 2 Ors (Nairobi High Court Petition Number 62 of 2015)
  • Geoffrey Mareko & Others v. General Secretary Dock Workers Union & Another (Mombasa Industrial Court Cause Number 532 of 2014)
    [2015] e-KLR
  • COTU-Ke and the Federation of Kenya Employers v. N.H.I.F (Industrial Court at Nairobi Cause Number 887 of 2010)
  • Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v. Roseto Flowers
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.

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.