Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Export Floriculture, Horticulture & Allied Workers Union & another [2019] KEELRC 24 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substantial loss for purposes of stay of execution
The alleged substantial loss was not direct; the 1st respondent's members would simply continue to enjoy the terms and conditions applicable to claimant members, so no prejudice warranting stay was shown
The court examined the effect of its judgment and found that the decree carried no quantified monetary value. The 1st respondent's members would remain entitled to the favourable terms already applicable to claimant members, protected by section 26(2) of the Employment Act, 2007. Loss of the prospect of negotiating separate CBAs with employers already bound by a recognition agreement did not amount to the substantial loss required by the stay principles.
Requirement of security
Security is inapplicable because the decree has no monetary value
Applying the Order 42 Rule 6 framework as persuasive authority, the court noted security is tied to due performance of a decree. Since the judgment mandated implementation of recognition and CBA arrangements rather than payment of any sum, there was nothing capable of being secured by a deposit, and that condition fell away.
Scope of intervention on a stay application
The court should not go into the merits of the intended appeal; questions of law raised in the draft memorandum are for the Court of Appeal
The court held that the 1st respondent's complaints about the construction of sections 54(1), (2) and (3) of the Labour Relations Act were matters for the appellate court. The court confined itself to whether the stay conditions were met, observing that the facts of the authorities relied on by the 1st respondent differed from those of the present case.
Distinguishability of authorities relied on
The David Benedict Omulama authority was distinguishable on the facts
The court held the 1st respondent was missing that the facts of each case have different foundations. The facts in the referenced matters were different from the facts here, so the precedent did not assist the application for stay.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of execution pending appeal requires demonstration of substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security where applicable; where the decree has no monetary value the security requirement does not apply
- An employee already enjoying more favourable terms under a collective agreement or court order cannot be made to suffer prejudice; the more favourable terms prevail under section 26(2) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st respondent's application dated 15th August 2019 is not allowed (dismissed)
- 2.Each party shall bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 17 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 (right of appeal); stay pending appeal invoking discretionary powers (Order 42 Rule 6 principles applied as persuasive authority)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Export Floriculture, Horticulture & Allied Workers Union & another [2019] KEELRC 24 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment (Cause at Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nakuru; judgment appealed from delivered 29th July 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/24/eng@2019-12-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.