Kenya Union of Commercial, Food & Allied Workers v Nyanas Water & Sanitation Co. Ltd & 3 others [2018] KEELRC 946 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered four water-sector entities to equally share over Kshs. 4 million in unpaid salaries, holding that restructuring and devolution made them all responsible.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant proved unpaid salaries and other dues against the respondents
The court found the claim plausible, holding the 1st respondent primarily liable as employer but all respondents intertwined and liable, and discounted the 2nd and 4th respondents' defences as mere denials.
The court accepted the claimant's elucidation of the linkage between the respondents arising from the devolution of water services and the restructuring of the 1st respondent. Although the 1st respondent bears primal responsibility as employer, the 2nd and 4th respondents' pleadings amounted to bare denials without substantive answer to the documented unpaid salaries and unremitted dues, and so were unmerited.
Who is responsible for payment of the dues
All respondents were held liable at parity, in equal shares.
The court found the respondents so intertwined that the matter bound all of them in one way or the other. The 1st respondent, as employer, takes primal responsibility, but the 2nd respondent had made unfulfilled promises to pay and the devolution of water services drew the county government and the water companies into responsibility for the obligations, justifying joint but equal-share liability.
The 4th respondent's submission that no reasonable cause of action was established
The authority on reasonable cause of action was noted but the court did not strike out the claim; instead it found the claim plausible against all respondents.
The 4th respondent relied on authorities defining a reasonable cause of action as one with some chances of success, contending none was established against it. The court acknowledged the submission ('So far, so good for her case') but, on the evidence, found the claim plausible and the respondents liable, effectively rejecting the no-cause-of-action defence.
Legal principles established
#- Where respondents are intertwined in relation to employment liabilities, liability may be apportioned equally among them.
Court orders
#- 1.Payment of salary arrears amounting to over Kshs. 4 million for the period of seventeen months
- 2.Payment of union dues amounting to Kshs. 252,000.00
- 3.The respondents be and are hereby awarded liability at parity, in equal shares
- 4.The respondents to meet and pay all dues within thirty (30) days of the judgment
- 5.The claimant is awarded interest at court rates from the date of the judgment
- 6.The costs of the claim shall be borne by the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (implied; not expressly cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial, Food & Allied Workers v Nyanas Water & Sanitation Co. Ltd & 3 others [2018] KEELRC 946 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 16 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/946/eng@2018-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.