Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion Application dated 10th July, 2019 (ELRC Cause, Eldoret)· [2020] KEELRC 938 (KLR)

Tailors & Textiles Workers Union v Global Apparels Epz Limited;Fidelis Omwamba Onsongo & 6 others (Proposed Interested Parties) [2020] KEELRC 938 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 May 2020
2,172 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer that ignored a court order to deduct union dues was found guilty of contempt — written resignations are the only valid excuse.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant union moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court by Notice of Motion dated 10th July 2019, brought under Order LIII Rules 3(1) and 3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Judicature Act, seeking a finding that Global Apparel EPZ Limited was in contempt of orders issued on 30th April 2019 directing the deduction of union dues from 1644 employees, committal of the Respondent's officers to civil jail for up to six months, and denial of audience to the Respondent until the contempt was purged. The Respondent opposed, alleging errors in the union's list (repeated, non-existent and departed employees), mass resignations from the union, and a go-slow, arguing that its non-compliance was not deliberate and that effecting deductions would breach employees' rights under Article 41 of the Constitution. The Claimant relied on three contempt authorities while the Respondent relied on authorities holding that bona fide non-compliance is not contempt, and invoked the higher standard of proof in Mutitika v Baharini Farm. The court found that although the Respondent alleged only 1120 members remained, it never explained why it failed to effect deductions even for those members, nearly a year after the order. Under Sections 48(3) and 48(6) of the Labour Relations Act, only employees who had notified the employer in writing of resignation could be excluded; only one such notification was exhibited. The court found the Respondent guilty of contempt on 21st May 2020.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether failure to comply with an order for union dues deduction constituted contempt where the Respondent alleged employees had resigned

Holding

The Respondent was guilty of contempt for failing to deduct dues from members who had not notified resignation

Reasoning

The court held that under Section 48(3) of the Labour Relations Act, an employer must commence deductions within thirty days of notice, while Section 48(6) only excuses deductions for employees who have notified the employer in writing of resignation. The Respondent annexed only one such notification (Francis Momanyi), so its failure to deduct dues for the remaining members constituted contempt of the orders of 30th April 2019.

p. 4
02

Whether the Respondent's claim that only 1120 of 1644 listed employees remained in employment excused non-compliance

Holding

No, the Respondent did not explain why it failed to effect deductions even for the 1120 members it alleged were still in employment

Reasoning

The court noted the Respondent claimed that out of 1644 members, only 1120 remained after checking the list. However, the Respondent never proceeded to effect deductions for those 1120 members, even almost a year after the order, undermining its defence of bona fide non-compliance.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer who fails to deduct and remit union dues for members who have not resigned from the union, notwithstanding a court order, is in contempt

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A finding that the Respondent is guilty of contempt of the Court Orders of 30th April 2019 for failure to deduct and remit union dues from the Claimant's members, save for those who resigned from the Union

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder LIII Rules 3(1) and 3(4)
  • Judicature Act
  • Labour Relations ActSection 48(3)
  • Labour Relations ActSection 48(6)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41

Cases cited (6)

  • Dorothy Mwanzia Ng'ang'a & 4 Others Vs Machakos County Government & 4 Others
    (2018) eKLR
  • Teachers Service Commission Vs Kenya National Union of Teachers & 2 Others
    (2013) eKLR
  • Kenya National Private Security Workers Union Vs Lavington Security Limited
    (2019) eKLR
  • Kenya Aviation Workers Union Vs Kenya Airports Authority
    (2018) eKLR
  • Noreen Shariff & Others, as Administrators of the Estate of Jim Choge Vs Chief Land Registrar & 2 Others; Amusement Garden Limited (Interested Party)
    (2019) eKLR
  • Mutitika Vs Baharini Farm Limited
    (1985) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order LIII Rules 3(1) and 3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and all enabling provisions of the law including the Judicature Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tailors & Textiles Workers Union v Global Apparels Epz Limited;Fidelis Omwamba Onsongo & 6 others (Proposed Interested Parties) [2020] KEELRC 938 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion Application dated 10th July, 2019 (ELRC Cause, Eldoret). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/938/eng@2020-05-21

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