Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherCause No. 2343 of 2017· [2018] KEELRC 291 (KLR)

Kenya Aviation Workers Union v Bollore Africa Logistics Limited; Aviation and Airport Services Workers Union (K) (Interested Party) [2018] KEELRC 291 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 December 2018
378 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court corrected a clerical error in its judgment, confirming Bollore cannot negotiate a CBA without a valid recognition agreement.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a corrigenda ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi in Cause No. 2343 of 2017, a dispute between the Kenya Aviation Workers Union (claimant), Bollore Africa Logistics Limited (respondent) and the Aviation and Airport Services Workers Union (K) (interested party). The substantive judgment, delivered on 28th September 2018 by Maureen Onyango, J, had declared that the respondent lacked capacity to negotiate a CBA with the interested party and granted an injunction restraining the respondent from negotiating or registering any CBA with the interested party while a valid recognition agreement existed between the claimant and the respondent. By an application dated 29th October 2018, the claimant drew the court's attention to a mistake on the face of the record: a paragraph of the judgment wrongly stated that there was no valid recognition agreement between the claimant and the respondent, whereas the court's actual finding was that there was no valid recognition agreement between the respondent and the interested party. The court accepted the correction, removed the erroneous paragraph and substituted the corrected paragraph restating the declaration and injunction in their proper form. Each party was to bear its own costs as per the original judgment. This ruling does not disturb the substance of the original decision; it merely corrects the record under the slip rule.

Key legal issues

#
01

Correction of a mistake on the face of the record

Holding

The court corrected the judgment's erroneous statement that there was no valid recognition agreement between the claimant and the respondent, substituting the correct finding that there was no valid recognition agreement between the respondent and the Interested Party

Reasoning

The claimant's application of 29th October 2018 drew the court's attention to the error in the judgment delivered on 28th September 2018. The court accepted that the paragraph misstated its own determination, struck out the erroneous paragraph and replaced it with the corrected declaration and injunction, preserving the substance of the original disposition.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may correct a mistake on the face of the record to reflect its true determination, replacing the erroneous paragraph with the corrected text

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The mistake on the face of the record in the judgment delivered on 28th September 2018 is corrected
  2. 2.The first paragraph of page 11 of the judgment is removed from the record and replaced with the corrected paragraph declaring that the respondent has no capacity to negotiate a CBA with the Interested Party as there is no valid recognition agreement between the respondent and the Interested Party
  3. 3.The injunction stopping the respondent from negotiating or registering any collective bargaining agreement with the Interested Party for as long as there is a valid recognition agreement between the claimant and the respondent is affirmed as corrected
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent power to correct a mistake on the face of the record (slip rule); Employment and Labour Relations Court cause

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Aviation Workers Union v Bollore Africa Logistics Limited; Aviation and Airport Services Workers Union (K) (Interested Party) [2018] KEELRC 291 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 2343 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/291/eng@2018-12-20

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