Kenya Building, Construction, Timber, Furniture & Allied Employees Union v M/S Steel Structures Limited [2019] KEELRC 2129 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a union's group claim on behalf of 25 dismissed Bamburi Cement workers, ruling that bundling unrelated cases is an abuse of court process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Representative suits and commonality of interest
Filing a compound claim on behalf of Grievants with different facts and causes of action is an abuse of the court process
The Union filed one claim on behalf of 25 Grievants whose claims had different facets and causes of action, the only common feature being the Respondent. The court noted this is a practice some unions adopt and cautioned against it, holding that representative suits require the same interest among numerous persons. Although the suit failed principally on evidence, the court pronounced it inherently an abuse of process.
Limitation of actions
A claim filed years beyond the six-year period under Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act is time barred
The Respondent objected that some causes of action were time barred. In respect of Osman Makokha, dismissed on 2nd December 2002 over a forged receipt, the suit filed in 2010 was a few years past the limitation period. The other claims were filed within six years of the events giving rise to them.
Fairness of the dismissals
The dismissals were lawful because each Grievant received a dismissal letter setting out grounds, with prior warnings, show cause letters and consideration of explanations
The court found that before termination each Grievant was issued with a letter of dismissal setting out the grounds, and that prior to dismissal there were warnings and show cause letters. Explanations, where made, were considered and a finding made, so the law applicable under the repealed Employment Act was complied with. The claim failed for paucity of evidence of infringement.
Legal principles established
#- A representative suit is only proper where the parties share the same interest; compound claims with markedly different facts and causes of action are an abuse of the court process
- The burden lies on the claimant to prove that dismissals were unfair or unlawful
Court orders
#- 1.The claim (dispute) is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment dispute referred after unresolved conciliation before the Minister for Labour; governed by the repealed Employment Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Building, Construction, Timber, Furniture & Allied Employees Union v M/S Steel Structures Limited [2019] KEELRC 2129 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2129/eng@2019-02-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.