Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2018] KEELRC 1389 (KLR)

Amalgamated Union of Kenya Metal Workers v Toyota Kenya Limited [2018] KEELRC 1389 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 July 2018
HWHellen Wasilwa
905 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

#

A Kenyan court refused to enforce a settlement signed by a former employee, ruling he had no authority after resigning.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on an application dated 14/12/2017 in which the Applicant sought urgent stay of execution of a ruling delivered on 8/10/2015 and any decree arising from it, restraining the Respondent from executing for Kshs.3,014,256/=, and sought adoption of a consent dated 28/6/2017 and filed on 29/6/2017 as an order of the Court, with the matter marked as fully settled. The Applicant, through its General Manager in charge of Human Resource, Anne Kirumba, contended that the consent was validly executed, that the Respondent had received Kshs.1,596,000/= as agency fees, and that the consent had been negotiated and signed by Patrick Makale, who had been given authority by the then General Secretary Justus Maina Otakwa to represent the Union in all court matters. The Respondent/Claimant opposed, raising preliminary issues and contending that Makale had resigned from its employment on 12/5/2017 without notice and without handing over, and therefore had no mandate to sign the consent or to alter the ruling of 8/10/2015. Justice Hellen Wasilwa agreed with the Respondent: by the time the consent was recorded on 28/6/2017, Makale had ceased to be a staff member of the Respondent and had no authority to transact on its behalf. The application to adopt a consent obtained through illegality was rejected, and costs of the application were awarded to the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the consent dated 28/6/2017

Holding

The consent was invalid because the signatory, Patrick Makale, had resigned from the Respondent's employment on 12/5/2017 and lacked authority to sign it or to alter the ruling of 8/10/2015

Reasoning

The court examined the consent filed on 29/6/2017 and compared it with a resignation letter dated 12/5/2017 from Patrick Makale. Since Makale had terminated his services with the Respondent with immediate effect before the consent was recorded, he had no mandate to transact on behalf of the Claimant. A consent obtained through such illegality could not stand or be adopted as an order of the Court.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A consent signed by a person who had ceased to be a staff member of a party before the date of the consent, and thus without authority, cannot be adopted as an order of the Court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 14/12/2017 seeking adoption of the consent is rejected as not being a consent of the parties
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction; application dated 14/12/2017 seeking adoption of a consent order and stay of execution of a ruling delivered 8/10/2015

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Amalgamated Union of Kenya Metal Workers v Toyota Kenya Limited [2018] KEELRC 1389 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1389/eng@2018-07-09

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