Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No. 1087 of 2011 (originally Nairobi HCCC No. 591 of 1995)· [2018] KEELRC 1820 (KLR)

Joshua Ooro & others v Coffee Board of Kenya [2018] KEELRC 1820 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
12 March 2018
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,490 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A 1994 payout settled claims only for the 206 employees listed in the agreement; 50 unlisted former Coffee Board workers can still pursue their terminal dues.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This first-instance claim, originally filed in the High Court at Nairobi on 23/2/1995 as HCCC No. 591 of 1995 by J.A.B. Orengo Advocate for 205+ former employees of the Coffee Board of Kenya, was transferred by consent on 16/5/2011 to the then Industrial Court of Kenya as Cause No. 1087 of 2011 and proceeded as a test suit under a consent recorded before Hon. Justice Rawal on 1.3.2011. The Claimants alleged unfair termination in 1994 and non-payment of terminal dues agreed in writing on 10th January 1994 between the parties and the Ministry of Labour - payment in lieu of notice (6 days), severance pay (10 days per year of service) and prorata leave (1.75 days per month) - payable by 18th January 1994, plus house, night and overtime allowances totalling Kshs.82,110.55 each. The Respondent denied liability, contending the Claimants were casuals and that the claim was res judicata because Kshs.679,317/= was paid under criminal case No. 4402/1994, which was then withdrawn. The matter was referred to a Conciliator under Section 5 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, who reported on 15/10/2017 that 50 additional employees had been added after the Labour office payment. Adopting Justice Mugo's 2005 ruling that the payment was not proved to be in full and final settlement, Justice Hellen Wasilwa held on 12th March 2018 that the 206 listed employees' claims were settled by the payment, but the 50 unlisted Claimants were never paid and must identify themselves to pursue their claims. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Res judicata / full and final settlement

Holding

The payment of Kshs.679,317/= under the 10.1.1994 agreement settled the claims of the 206 listed employees only; the court aligned with Justice Mugo's earlier ruling that the payment did not settle the whole suit.

Reasoning

The agreement of 10.1.1994 listed 106 (later computed as 206) employees for payment of terminal benefits; a cheque for Kshs.679,317/= was paid and receipted via the Ministry of Labour. The criminal case concerned only notice and leave pay. A prior ruling by Hon. J.M. Mugo on 11/3/2005 had already found no proof of full and final settlement of all claims. Employees outside the settlement list were never paid.

p. 2
02

Claims of the additional 50 Claimants

Holding

The 50 additional Claimants form part of the claim, were never paid, and must identify themselves to have their claims resolved.

Reasoning

The Conciliator found that 50 employees were added to the list after payment was made at the Labour office and during the filing of HCCC No. 591/1995. He concluded that if they suffered the same fate they should be paid as others were and issued with certificates of service. The court found their claims were never concluded by the settlement agreement.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A settlement agreement covering a defined list of employees pays out only those employees; claimants outside that list are not concluded by it
  • Payment under a criminal case confined to notice and leave pay does not settle wider civil claims for house allowance, night allowance and overtime

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A finding that the claims of the 206 employees listed in the 10.1.1994 agreement are settled by payment of Kshs.679,317/= in terminal dues
  2. 2.The remaining 50 Claimants not included in the settlement list should state who they are in the claim and proceed to have their claims resolved

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 5
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (matter transferred by consent from the High Court to the then Industrial Court of Kenya on 16/5/2011)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joshua Ooro & others v Coffee Board of Kenya [2018] KEELRC 1820 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 1087 of 2011 (originally Nairobi HCCC No. 591 of 1995). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1820/eng@2018-03-12

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